Bayeux Tapestry - the 'missing' last section? - Page 2 - Historum

Wobomagonda · August 22nd, 2009, 12:37 PM

I love Palindromes

**Black Dog** · August 22nd, 2009, 12:44 PM

The pope, and hence William, had ordered that Harold was an usurper, because of the Stigand affair, therefore his body was to be buried in unconsecrated ground. However, apparently, 2 Norman knights smuggled his body to Waltham to be buried.

Knowing the character of William, I think that possibly the 2 Norman knights who did this, did it with his tacit agreement. William was very religious, and possibly, deep down, he knew the truth of the Stigand affair and also his own questionable legitimacy as a claimant for the throne of England. He was also, apparently, rather fond of Harold, and admired him. He was said to be upset when Harold's hewn body was brought to him at Hastings (in several pieces).

Also, to pour water on rumours of Harold's escape, the Bayeaux tapestry may have shown all the above happening.

But, most likely, Odo will be the main reason why any of it went missing. What could the missing section have depicted that may have caused Odo to have it removed? Or any of William's successors?

**Richard Stanbery** · August 22nd, 2009, 07:25 PM

I think that Kingtaker was talking about the body of Harald Hardrada rather than Harold Goodwinson.

Though I have often wondered why, if King Harold of England had survived, did he not attempt a comeback? Or, at least some kind of underground movement?

As to the tapestry itself...it wouldnt have been removed unless it either had an inflamatory message, or a treasure map or some other sort of thing odious to the Normans...or useful to the Saxons?

In other words, it was important to somebody.

What was the chain of custody of the tapestry during the time of the dissection?

**Black Dog** · August 23rd, 2009, 01:23 AM

Well, the point I was making was to suggest that the missing section may have been to illustrate that Harold was killed at Hastings, and his subsequent burial was proof. Odo's way of "burying" the Anglo-Saxon dynasty. However, if it showed Harold being buried "properly" (in consecrated ground at Waltham), then this was counter to the message given by the pope and adopted by William, that Harold was not a true king because of his being crowned by the "usurper" Archbishop, Stigand. Whereas English sources always claimed that Harold was crowned by Aldred, legitimate archbishop of York. In spreading one message, they'd be spreading another, contradictory message. Odo was not known for being the most tactful of men.

JohnnyH · August 23rd, 2009, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Dog

Well, the point I was making was to suggest that the missing section may have been to illustrate that Harold was killed at Hastings, and his subsequent burial was proof. Odo's way of "burying" the Anglo-Saxon dynasty. However, if it showed Harold being buried "properly" (in consecrated ground at Waltham), then this was counter to the message given by the pope and adopted by William, that Harold was not a true king because of his being crowned by the "usurper" Archbishop, Stigand. Whereas English sources always claimed that Harold was crowned by Aldred, legitimate archbishop of York. In spreading one message, they'd be spreading another, contradictory message. Odo was not known for being the most tactful of men.

Firstly, I was talking about Hardraada, which I thought I had made clear?

Secondly, Harold Godwinson was not crowned by Stigand, but by Archbishop Ealdred of York (who also crowned William), Harold knew the value of this action in terms of the Norman propaganda machine.
A papal legate to England in 1062 (returning with earl Tostig and the new Archbishop of York, Ealdred) found no dissention in the English church worthy of action, even against Stigand!

**Black Dog** · August 23rd, 2009, 05:34 AM

Your original question:

Quote:

But what could it have depicted originally, and why is it missing at all? Could it have incurred the displeasure of someone powerful?

NO mention of Hardrada at that point. You want to dismiss a previous question and ask another? Start a new thread. THIS original question was the one I was speculating upon, as is plainly evident:

Quote:

Well, the point I was making was to suggest that the missing section may have been to illustrate that Harold was killed at Hastings, and his subsequent burial was proof.

It is plain that (a) the original question was not about Hardrada, and (b) my answer wasn't, either. Is that clear enough?

You BELIEVE that Harold was crowned by Aldred. It is a well known and unsolved controversy, one of the biggest in English medieval history. Plenty of other sources state that Harold was crowned by Stigand: William knew the propaganda value of this, too. The Pope plainly believed this, (albeit possibly for his own ends), as did Norman and even some English commentators. Following modern trends in history as gospel, with absolutely no new evidence, does not a historical fact make. 30 years ago, with no less evidence, the "overwhelming" idea was that Stigand crowned Harold. It remains an unsolved controversy. Nobody alive can say "I know this".

For what it is worth, I believe that Harold was crowned by Aldred. But no-one can actually say with 100% certainty, it is one of them things we'll never know. Certainly, Norman propaganda/version of the events held sway and still do.