Bayeux Tapestry

Chat about anything local that doesn't fit elsewhere!
User avatar
Richard
Posts: 2522
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Bayeux Tapestry

Postby Richard » Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:21 pm

I fear that it is more likely to be displayed at the British Museum in 2020 as it will attract more visitors. If that Institution can encourage more tourists to visit Hastings then so much the better.
High security measures would be required to protect the priceless artifact and can we guarantee this? It may be on loan with specifications regarding such very high security measures as well as light and mositure conditions, etcetera.
Also who would visit Hastings just to see the exhibit, even if security etcetera could be guaranteed?
Do we know the length of time it is 'on loan' for as it may be possible to display it at more than one location.
Logistics, planning, protection - all a bit of a headache for someone to manage!

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 2522
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Bayeux Tapestry

Postby Richard » Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:52 am

It appears there is a now a battle royal brewing over the site to display the 'tapestry'.
British Museum, The Tower of London, and English Heritage are all in contention.
English Heritage want to display it at Battle Abbey, presumably they have the facilities?

A temporary building at Battle Abbey could showcase the tapestry – which the French president this week offered to loan to the UK in 2022 – near the spot where King Harold died.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... tings-site

cbe
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:29 pm

Re: Bayeux Tapestry

Postby cbe » Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:13 pm

I would happily settle for Battle Abbey

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 2522
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Bayeux Tapestry

Postby Richard » Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:32 pm

Me too - but who decides?
The people who are lending it, on the back of the French President's gesture, will surely want to ensure guarantees over it's protection.
Armed Military or a Police escort from France.
The insurance value alone will be immense - it is said to be 'priceless'.
Reassurances will be demanded that it will be “securely guarded” from start to finish.
Round-the-clock protection.
We have tried to borrow it twice, in 1953 (Coronation year) and 1966 (900 years after theBattle).
Both attempts failed.

I understand that the 'Rosetta Stone' was found by the French at Rosetta (Egypt) in 1799 and surrendered to the British in 1801.
It is now held in the British Museum, there may be some haggling for the Museum to allow lending that artifact back to France in return for displaying their famous Tapestry.

Cynric the cynical
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: Bayeux Tapestry

Postby Cynric the cynical » Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:16 pm

Hi all,

This is my first post so be gentle with me. Browsing through this topic I've seen some real schoolboy howlers and felt I had to put pen to paper as it were.

Canute the Great was Danish. He ruled the Danelaw area of England before being invited by the nobles that was the Witan to take over the running of all England. Harold might have been distantly related by marriage to Canute - there was no blood ties at all. Harold was of the House of Wessex, so he was related to Alfred in some way.

Although we might see things in terms of Anglo-Saxon and natives or an "us and them" scenario at least everyone spoke the same language - the rulers and the ruled. Different rules applied after the Norman Conquest. Hence the antagonism between the upper class ( Norman descendants) and the worker bees ( Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and others).

I've been studying the Tapestry for 5 years and the story it tells of the engagements that made up the Battle of Hastings is different to the "official" version

Cynric the cynical
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: Bayeux Tapestry

Postby Cynric the cynical » Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:33 pm

English Heritage's claim that Battle Abbey was the place that Harold was killed rests on some really dodgy evidence.

The presiding Abbot in 1152 ( one Walter de Luci) was having words with the Bishop of Chichester over the status of Battle Abbey ( Royal Peculiar) so Walter forged a document known as the "Chronicle of Battle Abbey" and thus the lie was born. So the Victorians got hold of the tale and carved a stone and plonked it in the ground thus making it true. The Parish of Battle remains to this day a Royal Peculiar.

In my eyes this would be okay if in 1856 the Parish of Battle didn't have the Parish of Netherfield split off from it ( I'm talking ecclesiastical parishes here, Harold did actually die in the civil parish of Battle!).

I think I do know where Harold was killed to a 20 metre square but as I'm in negotiation with the landowner for access with a metal detector I'd better say no more.

User avatar
Derek Jempson
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:56 am

Re: Bayeux Tapestry

Postby Derek Jempson » Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:19 am

Intriguing - please keep us posted on progress. The lack of archaeology alone at the presumed site of the battle is enough to throw huge doubts on its "claim to fame".

User avatar
seahermit
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Bayeux Tapestry

Postby seahermit » Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:14 pm

The questions about the true location of the Battle of Hastings are too complex to go properly into on a beautiful day ..

I will just say that the official site of the battle is almost certainly the wrong one. I have seen a couple of fascinating TV progs on this, also read about it - the geography is wrong and the complete absence of artefacts or human relics in tbe ground is very telling. In contrast, pieces of weapons and armour have been found in more than one other location - there are several contending sites put forward by different researchers but the one near Crowhurst seems to be a favourite.

What is needed is a thorough and non-biased investigation by a team of archaeologists and researchers - very unlikely to happen in the near future! Over the centuries a huge investment has been put into the Battle Abbey location with all the accompanying promotion for tourism purposes. It would be a blow and rather a humiliation to English Heritage to concede that the "site" of the battle has all along rested on a myth concocted by the mediaeval church in order to get official support and funding for a new abbey built in an imposing location.

I'm not too bothered where the tapestry is exhibited, does it make much difference to anyone? What has always mystified me is quite why the Battle of Hastings is "celebrated" the way it is, as a major highpoint in our history. The Norman invasion was at first a disaster to the country, the Normans subjugated the Saxons with great brutality, nationwide burning whole villages and crops so that hundreds of thousands of peasants simply starved to death. Subsequent Saxon revolts were put down with equal savagery. There was nothing Christian, civilised or cultured about the Normans. Preceding the invasion, there was a fairly peaceable and well-ordered Saxon society, subsequently there were many upheavals as different barons and claimants to the throne fought bitter civil wars to gain superiority. History books tend to tell the story in soundbites - they gloss over all the nuances and the realities of how violent and horrible life was for many ordinary, impotent peasant populations!

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 2522
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Bayeux Tapestry

Postby Richard » Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:58 pm

Viking raiders struck England in 793 and raided Lindisfarne, the monastery that held Saint Cuthbert's relics. The raiders killed the monks and captured the valuables. The raid marks the beginning of the "Viking Age of Invasion", made possible by the Viking long-ship.
Norwegian Vikings and other Scandinavians conducted extensive raids in Ireland. They founded Limerick in 812, then established Waterford in 853, founded the only Viking capital city in the world outside the Nordic countries in Dublin, and founded trading ports in Cork in the 9th century.
King 'Canute the Great' was Danish, (the one-time King of Denmark, Norway and England) he was at the head of an array of Vikings from all over Scandinavia who attacked Britain in 1016.
Wales, Scotland Iceland and Greenland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, you name it were under Viking control at times.

Rather than continue the armed struggle against the Vikings we paid Dane-geld (based on hidages).
The rest is history - oh! but we are still paying the equivalent to the EU...
:)

User avatar
seahermit
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Bayeux Tapestry

Postby seahermit » Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:46 am

As I said, there was nothing wonderful about the Norman invasion of 1066. It was a traumatic and violent assault on thic country but history books largely gloss over the reality, romanticise the events and treat it all as a bit of a lark. Over the next two centuries, things settled down, there was of course a lot of intermarrying between the Saxons and the Normans and some movement towards the feeling of unified nationhood, but for long there remained sharp divisions and resentment between the ruling classes and the ordinary peasantry - hence various peasant revolts, Robin Hood and all that!


Return to “General Hastings Chat & Friendly Banter”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest