Bayeux Tapestry
Mekon
associated museum (really just a series of context placing exhibits) has a
copy of the tapestry and a running commentary interpreting the events and
characters. Has anyone else seen this? It seemed to someone of my limited
knowledge of the subject that it was a very Franco-centric view. (I know, I
know what else would I expect?) For example the scene where Harold pleges
allegiance to William, is given the added spin of "Of totally his own free
will". I think that if one was a prisoner with a sword at your throat you
would promise anything to live and be free. I'd pledge allegiance to Kermit
the frog till I got back to England.
Is it just the French spin doctors? Or is it me that is biassed?
mekon
Rabid Bee
Well, it was meant as a justification for the conquest, surely? So
naturally, they wanted to show how just was William's cause. Naturally
it was biased - those peasant women probably hadn't a clue, and just
sewed what they were told to.
Cheers, Alex
Surreyman
they not then have to come to us Brits (Kent) to have it so
beautifully made?!
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Ian Chapman
accepted not by French women. It was probably made by English ladies under
the direction of Queen Mathilda, English wife of William the Conqueror, at
the bequest of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, the King's half-brother.
Odo fought at Hastings, overcoming the Church's restriction of clerics
shedding blood, by using a wooden club. In the Tapestry he is prominently
featured and named, club and all, rallying shocked young
Normans,''pueros''-boys.
The English ladies who are considered to have made the Tapestry were the
sisters, daughters and widows of the defeated Anglo-Saxons. The way Harold
is shown, and the prominence of his demise, ''Haroldus Rex interfectus
est''-Harold the King was killed, points to a personal English interest.
In the 1980s a book was published, by an author with a Jewish sounding name
as I recall, which detected Biblical references to the Fall of the First
Temple in the Bayeux Tapestry.
As a matter of interest, the Rhodesians made a Tapestry of the founding of
Rhodesia, which hung in the Salisbury Parliament; what has happened to that
I do not know.
Regards,
Ian.
Rabid Bee <rabi...@mcmail.com> wrote in message
news:39362B...@mcmail.com...
Roger Whitehead
> As a matter of interest, the Rhodesians made a Tapestry of the founding of
> Rhodesia, which hung in the Salisbury Parliament
Made by the wives of deposed Matabele chiefs, under the direction of Mrs
Rhodes? 8-)
Regards,
Roger
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Roger Whitehead,
Oxted, Surrey, England
Roger Whitehead
> Well, it was meant as a justification for the conquest, surely? So
> naturally, they wanted to show how just was William's cause.
The book, "The Bayeux Tapestry and the Norman Invasion", by Lewis
Thorpe (Folio Press, 1973) says this:
The tapestry gives a biased view of those events but, if the women
who made it really were English-speaking, it forms some sort of link
between the two points of view, that of the conquerors and that of the
people who were conquered. Harold is presented throughout as the man in
high place who broke his solemn oath, and the message is the vengeance
of Almighty God upon the perjurer. It could serve no purpose to
denigrate Harold in other ways: the more awesome his valour, the more
marked his skill as a military leader, the greater must be the glory of
the men who destroyed him.
Melissa
and I pledge my life unto him...
;) Mel
Nightjar
Melissa <mca...@pacific.net.au> wrote in message
news:8h5lsn$rdq$1...@nina.pacific.net.au...
> Is there something weird about swearing fealty to Kermit? He is my
saviour,
> and I pledge my life unto him...
You are Miss Piggy and I claim my five pounds.
Colin
ANNE V. GILBERT
Melissa <mca...@pacific.net.au> wrote in message
news:8h5lsn$rdq$1...@nina.pacific.net.au...
> Is there something weird about swearing fealty to Kermit? He is my
saviour,
Mel:
Was Kermit alive and well in 1066?
Anne Gilbert
ANNE V. GILBERT
Mekon:
Well, you have to remember that 1066 was one of the few times in history
that the "French"(who weren't exactly the French we know and love today),
actually got the better of the English. Naturally, since the Bayeux
Tapestry is a French product, so to speak, they are very proud of it, and
want to make themselves look good. Also, you have to remember that, though
the Tapestry is very accurate in its historical detail(in some respects,
anyway), the stuff about Harold "willingly" swearing on holy relics is
probably a piece of then-contemporary propaganda to make the Normans look
good and righteous, etc., etc.
Anne Gilbert
ANNE V. GILBERT
> Well, it was meant as a justification for the conquest, surely? So
> it was biased - those peasant women probably hadn't a clue, and just
> sewed what they were told to.
Alex:
I don't think the women who sewed the Tapestry were peasants. And the women
who sewed the Tapestry may have been English. English embroidery work was
famous for its quality at the time.
Anne Gilbert
Vygg Stonehand
Vygg
Roger Whitehead wrote:
> In article <8h67qe$3530$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, Anne V.
> Gilbert wrote:
> > Was Kermit alive and well in 1066?
>
> Ay, but just a green and callow youth then.
Surreyman
realise that the Brits weren't even there!
Nightjar
Surreyman <spencer...@opps-press.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:243a9484...@usw-ex0109-068.remarq.com...
> Have you ever listened to the Waterloo commentary - I now
> realise that the Brits weren't even there!
Some years ago I surprised a German acquaintance by knowing that the
Prussians were.
Colin Bignell
Michael W Cook
avgi...@prodigy.net wrote on 1/6/00 6:51 pm:
> Also, you have to remember that, though
> the Tapestry is very accurate in its historical detail(in some respects,
> anyway), the stuff about Harold "willingly" swearing on holy relics is
> probably a piece of then-contemporary propaganda to make the Normans look
> good and righteous, etc., etc.
> Anne Gilbert
The Tapestry is not very accurate or rather, it contradicts many of the
contemporary sources that are available. For over a hundred years people
have been arguing about how accurate it really is when comparing it to the
written accounts which also contradict each other.
There has not been two academic books published on the subject which have
agreed with each other on the whole of the events which happened on the
Field of Hastings, let alone the incidents before.
This is why Hastings is so special, there is so much that we don't know
despite having so many sources available.
There are also many things in the tapestry that you can argue over, the
biggest being if Harold actually got one in the eye. Which character is
Harold ? Or are they both Harold ?
Dr N.P. Brooks in a paper at the first Battle Conference on the authenticity
of the Tapestry concluded that both figures represent Harold, the
arrow-in-the-eye chap and the guy being slashed in the thigh by the Mounted
Knight.
None of the contemporary writers talk of Harold's death in any detail, apart
from the Carmen which is doubted by many to be contemporary.
Poitiers doesn't mention it, Florence of Worcester just mentions the King
falling around sunset.
The Carmen mentions four Knights attacking Harold led by William.
William of Malmesbury writing some time after the Carmen repeats the story
but without William being involved and actually names the Knights.
If this was the case then I must refer to the words of the late
R Allen-Brown:
" This feat of arms would have been bruited abroad in every court and
chanson in Latin Christendom and beyond "
No one knows how Harold died.
The sworn oath to William
Harold had made some kind of pledge to William, what that was we shall never
know. William had earlier visited Edward The C in England and could well
have been promised the throne, but this was when the Godwinson family were
causing Edward some trouble with all their power.
Edward may well have changed his mind but this again we shall never know.
What we do know is that Harold was initially concerned with who became King
on Edward's death. He wasn't too concerned if it was Edgar the Aetheling or
William, as long as his family position was secure
This may have been the case when he went to Normandy and took this oath with
William as just such a measure in securing his titles and land.
Some say he went on his own accord, some say Edward sent him, whatever he
was thinking he wasn't about to tell William that he intended on taking the
crown for himself even if he was thinking it.
Saying that, the reason for his trip was to secure the release of two
hostages, that of his younger brother Wulfnoth and his nephew Hakon. If he
didn't swear allegiance to William there would have been no way William
would have released them.
This also begs the question of how the two became hostages, the Norman
sources tell us that they were to secure the Godwinson's support for
William, but there would have been no way this could have happened without
Harold knowing of it and probably approving it.
Hastings, there are so many unanswered questions I could go on all night.
The best and one of the most recent books available on the subject is
without doubt Stephen Morillo's Battle of Hastings, as editor, although his
accounts for the times for the end of the battle at the start of the book
are way out. The sun set at Hastings at 4-59pm on the day of the battle,
Morillo still has them fighting the final stages after 7pm. Don't let this
put you off though, it is one of the best books on the subject.
Others that have been published in the last couple of years that are also
well worth reading:
Jim Bradbury - Battle of Hastings.
Frank McLynn - 1066 the year of three Battles
Kindest regards to all
Michael
-----------------------------------------------
Michael W Cook
mwc...@crusader-productions.com
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mwcook
================================================
Surreyman
ANNE V. GILBERT
Michael:
> The Tapestry is not very accurate or rather, it contradicts many of the
> contemporary sources that are available. For over a hundred years people
> have been arguing about how accurate it really is when comparing it to the
> written accounts which also contradict each other.
> There has not been two academic books published on the subject which have
> agreed with each other on the whole of the events which happened on the
> Field of Hastings, let alone the incidents before.
> This is why Hastings is so special, there is so much that we don't know
> despite having so many sources available.
As usual, I didn't make myself sufficiently clear(a failing of mine, I
guess). What I meant when I wrote that the Tapestry is accurate was, not so
much about the historical detail; the work is as one source for info about
the period, but only one source, and as you point out, chroniclers have
written things that disagree with what's in the Tapestry. Nevertheless, it
is accurate in the sense that when you look at it, you know what kind of
clothese people wore, what kind of ships they built --- very much like the
earlier Viking longships, BTW ----, what kind of armor was used, etc. It
is *not* a totally accurate record of *events*. And you're right. There's
a lot we don't know. And probably never will.
Anne Gilbert
Vaughan Sanders
--
ANNE V. GILBERT <avgi...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8haaqn$1ssc$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> As usual, I didn't make myself sufficiently clear(a failing of mine, I
> guess). What I meant when I wrote that the Tapestry is accurate was, not
so
> much about the historical detail; the work is as one source for info
about
> the period, but only one source, and as you point out, chroniclers have
> written things that disagree with what's in the Tapestry. Nevertheless,
it
> is accurate in the sense that when you look at it, you know what kind of
> clothese people wore, what kind of ships they built --- very much like the
> earlier Viking longships, BTW ----, what kind of armor was used, etc. It
> is *not* a totally accurate record of *events*. And you're right.
There's
> a lot we don't know. And probably never will.
> Anne Gilbert
>
>
Ann, I hope you know they were Vikings (the Normans), Harold was a Viking
also .
I believe the tapestry shows the longships being loaded with horses,
something historians said, to pretty recently was impossible.
Sorry I have lost the web address but here's an extract I saved
In 1963 Danish boy scouts built a replica of the Ladby ship. Observing that
the warships depicted on the 11th-century Bayeux tapestry were used as horse
transports, the young mariners wanted to see if horses could really clamber
on board from a beach. Such a capability would have provided a motive for
retaining the low freeboard throughout the Viking Age. The sea trials of the
Ladby ship were a complete success, with horses, scouts and hull all
performing well. The ship proved surprisingly swift and handy on the open
sea, again vindicating the skill and ingenuity of the Viking shipwrights.
After the recovery of the Skuldelev ships in 1962, the Viking Ship Museum
was built at Roskilde to house the remains and provide a center for study
and reconstruction. In 1991 the Roskilde team built Helge Ask, an exact
replica of the smaller (17-meter) Skuldelev longship and saw its predatory
power in action. Even with only half the crew of 24 at the oars, the ship
easily outrowed a replica of the smaller, broader trading ship, also found
at Skuldelev (Roar Ege). The longship also outsailed the trader, with a
working speed approaching eight knots.
Although the trading ship performed better tacking into the wind, Helge
Ask's crew could make up the difference by quickly lowering sail and rowing.
Crumlin-Pedersen calculates that the longship could overtake its prey in any
conditions short of an outright gale. The sagas include an account of this
capability: A Viking named Gauti Tófason overtook four Danish knorrs in his
longship. He was on the verge of capturing a fifth when a storm blew up,
allowing his prey to escape.
In the past century more than 30 Viking ships have been reconstructed, and a
host of neo-Vikings maintains and operates many of these replicas. At
Roskilde, the guild of the Helge Ask takes the ship on sea trials and
cruises in summer, hauls it overland to test portage accounts, repairs it
during winter--and reports it all on the World Wide Web. A millennium after
the building of the original longships, the rough, expansive vigor of the
Vikings is seaborne again.
In September 1997 Danish archaeologists discovered a Viking longship in the
mud of Roskilde harbor, 40 kilometers (25 miles) west of Copenhagen. The
discovery was the kind of serendipitous event that earned Viking Leif
Eriksson the appellation "Leif the Lucky." Lying unsuspected next to the
world-renowned Viking Ship Museum at Roskilde, the longship came to light
during dredging operations to expand the harbor for the museum's fleet of
historic ship replicas
According to Ole Crumlin-Pedersen, former head of the museum, the longship
must have been sunk by a storm centuries ago, then hidden by silt. Tree-ring
dating of its oak planks showed that the ship had been built about A.D. 1025
during the reign of King Canute the Great who united Denmark, Norway,
southern Sweden and England in a Viking empire.
With its immense length of 35 meters, the Roskilde longship surpasses all
previous longship finds. By doing so, the ship also refuted skeptical modern
scholars who judged these leviathans, described in Norse sagas, to be as
mythical as the dragon whose name they bore. (Longships became known
generally as dragons.) The sagas had been accurate in their accounts of
"great ships," the largest class of Viking warship.
The passage of a millennium has not dimmed the pride Scandinavians feel for
the Viking longships. Their vital role in seaborne raiding, which is the
meaning of the Norse term viking, assures them a prominent place in medieval
history. Fleets of these long, narrow ships attacked coasts from
Northumberland to North Africa, carried pioneers to the British Isles and
Normandy, and made the Vikings the dominant sea power in Europe from about
A.D. 800 to 1100, the Viking Age.
ANNE V. GILBERT
Vaughn:
> Ann, I hope you know they were Vikings (the Normans), Harold was a Viking
> also .
> I believe the tapestry shows the longships being loaded with horses,
> something historians said, to pretty recently was impossible.
Yes, I knew about the "common ancestry" of both the NOrmans and a large
portion of the population of England(especially northeast of London. Of
course I did. What interested me was that the NOrmans wouldn't (probably)
have considered themselves "Vikings" in the sense we understand the word
today, but they were perfectly happy to use things that worked, like
shipbuilding techniques. Incidentally, these techniques were also used,
until about the middle of the 20th century, to build fishing boats in
Norway. Then, I suppose, the wooden fishing craft got superseeded by
motorcraft like we use today. As for transporting loads of horses, unlike
some scholars, I don't see why it couldn't have been done. While horses are
rather sensitive creatures, in some ways, the voyage across the English
Channel wouldn't have taken very long, once the wind was right and it got
started.
Anne Gilbert
Jonathan Jarrett
Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote:
>This is why Hastings is so special, there is so much that we don't know
>despite having so many sources available.
>
>There are also many things in the tapestry that you can argue over, the
>biggest being if Harold actually got one in the eye. Which character is
>Harold ? Or are they both Harold ?
>Dr N.P. Brooks in a paper at the first Battle Conference on the authenticity
>of the Tapestry concluded that both figures represent Harold, the
>arrow-in-the-eye chap and the guy being slashed in the thigh by the Mounted
>Knight.
>
>No one knows how Harold died.
Simon Keynes once made the point in a lecture that if both the
figure in the Tapestry with the arrow in his eye and the one being cut
down by cavalry sword are both supposed to be Harold, he changed his socks
in between :-) Check and see.
>The sworn oath to William
>
>Harold had made some kind of pledge to William, what that was we shall never
>know. William had earlier visited Edward The C in England and could well
>have been promised the throne, but this was when the Godwinson family were
>causing Edward some trouble with all their power.
>Edward may well have changed his mind but this again we shall never know.
>What we do know is that Harold was initially concerned with who became King
>on Edward's death. He wasn't too concerned if it was Edgar the Aetheling or
>William, as long as his family position was secure
>
>This may have been the case when he went to Normandy and took this oath with
>William as just such a measure in securing his titles and land.
>Some say he went on his own accord, some say Edward sent him, whatever he
>was thinking he wasn't about to tell William that he intended on taking the
>crown for himself even if he was thinking it.
>Saying that, the reason for his trip was to secure the release of two
>hostages, that of his younger brother Wulfnoth and his nephew Hakon. If he
>didn't swear allegiance to William there would have been no way William
>would have released them.
I have to say, there's a lot of assumption here. I'm sure there
were aby buymber of things Harold could have offered William - he was abot
the richest man in England after the King.
>This also begs the question of how the two became hostages, the Norman
>sources tell us that they were to secure the Godwinson's support for
>William, but there would have been no way this could have happened without
>Harold knowing of it and probably approving it.
Depends what they told William they could in order to get out :-)
>Hastings, there are so many unanswered questions I could go on all night.
>
>The best and one of the most recent books available on the subject is
>without doubt Stephen Morillo's Battle of Hastings, as editor, although his
>accounts for the times for the end of the battle at the start of the book
>are way out. The sun set at Hastings at 4-59pm on the day of the battle,
>Morillo still has them fighting the final stages after 7pm. Don't let this
>put you off though, it is one of the best books on the subject.
And why do you have to fight in daylight, especially if you're
chasing fugitives? Perhaps the moon was good :-) Yours,
Jon
Roger Whitehead
> Simon Keynes once made the point in a lecture that if both the
> figure in the Tapestry with the arrow in his eye and the one being cut
> down by cavalry sword are both supposed to be Harold, he changed his socks
> in between :-)
Another slip-up by continuity. 8-)
Iain Waterman
ANNE V. GILBERT <avgi...@prodigy.net> wrote
<snip> As for transporting loads of horses, unlike
> some scholars, I don't see why it couldn't have been done. While horses
are
> rather sensitive creatures, in some ways, the voyage across the English
> Channel wouldn't have taken very long, once the wind was right and it got
> started.
> Anne Gilbert
>
The problem with transporting horses by sea is that, because of the
structure of their digestive system, if they get sea-sick, they die. Even
today, cross-channel ferry skippers will refuse to carry horses if the
weather is even moderately bad. Vikings knew this - Normans knew this. The
state of the weather was absolutely critical to the timing of the Norman
Invasion.
ANNE V. GILBERT
Iain Waterman <wate...@fgent.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8heoj3$iu4$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Iain:
> The problem with transporting horses by sea is that, because of the
> structure of their digestive system, if they get sea-sick, they die. Even
> today, cross-channel ferry skippers will refuse to carry horses if the
> weather is even moderately bad. Vikings knew this - Normans knew this.
The
> state of the weather was absolutely critical to the timing of the Norman
> Invasion.
Thanks for the info. I knew there were problems with transporting horses by
sea, but I didn't know that if horses get seasick, they die. But then I
know absolutely nothing about the digestive systems of horses. If that's
the case, no wonder William & Co had to wait and wait and wait for a
favorable wind to carry them across the Channel
Anne Gilbert
Michael W Cook
jjar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote on 4/6/00 1:42 am:
> In article <B55DF01D.F2EF%mwc...@crusader-productions.com>,
> Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote:
>
>> Dr N.P. Brooks in a paper at the first Battle Conference on the authenticity
>> of the Tapestry concluded that both figures represent Harold, the
>> arrow-in-the-eye chap and the guy being slashed in the thigh by the Mounted
>> Knight.
>>
>> No one knows how Harold died.
>
> Simon Keynes once made the point in a lecture that if both the
> figure in the Tapestry with the arrow in his eye and the one being cut
> down by cavalry sword are both supposed to be Harold, he changed his socks
> in between :-) Check and see.
I have always thought that as well, Odo looks different in some parts too.
Perhaps not the best example I admit.
>
>> The sworn oath to William
>>
>> Harold had made some kind of pledge to William, what that was we shall never
>> know. William had earlier visited Edward The C in England and could well
>> have been promised the throne, but this was when the Godwinson family were
>> causing Edward some trouble with all their power.
>> Edward may well have changed his mind but this again we shall never know.
>> What we do know is that Harold was initially concerned with who became King
>> on Edward's death. He wasn't too concerned if it was Edgar the Aetheling or
>> William, as long as his family position was secure
>>
>> This may have been the case when he went to Normandy and took this oath with
>> William as just such a measure in securing his titles and land.
>> Some say he went on his own accord, some say Edward sent him, whatever he
>> was thinking he wasn't about to tell William that he intended on taking the
>> crown for himself even if he was thinking it.
>> Saying that, the reason for his trip was to secure the release of two
>> hostages, that of his younger brother Wulfnoth and his nephew Hakon. If he
>> didn't swear allegiance to William there would have been no way William
>> would have released them.
>
> I have to say, there's a lot of assumption here. I'm sure there
> were aby buymber of things Harold could have offered William - he was abot
> the richest man in England after the King.
But taking of a family member as hostage for some sort of security was the
done thing then.
If Harold had it clear in his mind that when Edward died he wanted the
throne it is something we will never know. So it's a bit pointless saying
that he could offered William this or that when we don't know what his real
intentions were.
The only sources we have are Norman such as William of Poitiers. His work
was written for William anyway so matters such as Harold swearing to William
over the throne of England should be seen in its proper context.
Norman propaganda to justify William's slaughter in gaining the crown.
>
>> This also begs the question of how the two became hostages, the Norman
>> sources tell us that they were to secure the Godwinson's support for
>> William, but there would have been no way this could have happened without
>> Harold knowing of it and probably approving it.
>
> Depends what they told William they could in order to get out :-)
Most likely.
>
>> Hastings, there are so many unanswered questions I could go on all night.
>>
>> The best and one of the most recent books available on the subject is
>> without doubt Stephen Morillo's Battle of Hastings, as editor, although his
>> accounts for the times for the end of the battle at the start of the book
>> are way out. The sun set at Hastings at 4-59pm on the day of the battle,
>> Morillo still has them fighting the final stages after 7pm. Don't let this
>> put you off though, it is one of the best books on the subject.
>
> And why do you have to fight in daylight, especially if you're
> chasing fugitives? Perhaps the moon was good :-)
>
> Yours Jon
>
Because if you fight in the dark, as the chasing Normans did, then you end
up falling into big traps set by the Saxons called Malfosse. You then get
your Norman/Frenchie arses whipped just a little bit more before final the
victory.
Seriously though Jon. The sun set at 4-59pm local time, as I mentioned, and
the moon did not rise until almost midnight, was less than half size and
kept close to the horizon.
I'd say it was getting pretty damn dark by the time they got to Malfosse.
Good point to stop.
If anyone is interested in Hastings and the Malfosse incident that took
place after the Battle on the Field of Hastings then I have a post that is
currently running on soc.history.medieval
I visited the 3 main sites back in November that have been touted for the
positions of where Malfosse actually is. I list my visits to each one and
write my impressions of the sites along with previous historians points of
view.
I could always re-post it here if others would like to see.
Kind regards
Melissa
Roger Whitehead
> you had a bet that I was Miss Piggy???
8-)
The British newspaper, the Daily Mirror, used to have a summertime
marketing campaign, run at seaside resorts, in a which an employee or
agent would pose as "Lobby Lud". His photograph (in silhouette, ISTR)
would have published in that day's paper, with a notification of which
resort he could be found at. If you saw him, and had a copy of the
Mirror on you, you could challenge him thus: "You are Lobby Lud and I
claim my five pounds".
Naturally, this produced an increase in local sales of the Mirror for
that day, but whether it would be sustained is debatable. Either way,
the challenge became a catchphrase.
Eric Partridge's Dictionary of Catchphrases gives the origin as being
with the Westminster Gazette, starting in August 1927 and with a prize
of GBP50 (a lot of money then). The name came from its telegraphic
address: "Lobby", from Parliamentary lobby, and "Lud", for Ludgate
Circus, where its offices were. When and how it transferred to the
Daily Mirror (or if; I may be misremembering) I have no information on.
Melissa
Melissa
Nightjar
Roger Whitehead <r...@office-futures.com> wrote in message
news:VA.000010e...@office-futures.com...
>
>
> marketing campaign, run at seaside resorts, in a which an employee or
> agent would pose as "Lobby Lud". His photograph (in silhouette, ISTR)
> would have published in that day's paper, with a notification of which
> resort he could be found at. If you saw him, and had a copy of the
> Mirror on you, you could challenge him thus: "You are Lobby Lud and I
> claim my five pounds".
It is a long time ago (1950s?), but my recollection is that there was a
specification about how the newspaper had to be held as well. You had to
get everything exactly right to claim the money. ISTR that there were
few payouts because most people got something wrong.
Colin Bignell
Roger Whitehead
> It is a long time ago (1950s?), but my recollection is that there was a
> specification about how the newspaper had to be held as well
Sounds like the makings of a Monty Python sketch. 8-)
(I *do* remember the Daily Sketch golden Guinea Girl promo, along similar
lines.)
Private
against the Brits.
They tend to forget that Normans were Norsemen who had scared the French so
much they gave them the North of their country and had been there barely 80
years at the time of the Battle of Hastings.
--
______________________________________________
咫誑咫誧咫誑咫誧咫誑咫誧咫誑咫誧咫誑咫誧咫誑咫
秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤
This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee only. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You
should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this communication if
received in error.
NO BINDING CONTRACT WILL RESULT FROM THIS E-MAIL UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A
WRITTEN DOCUMENT IS SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE ORGANISATION.
This organisation cannot accept any responsibility for the
completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over
public networks.
______________________________________________
咫誑咫誧咫誑咫誧咫誑咫誧咫誑咫誧咫誑咫誧咫誑咫
秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤秤
Mekon <me...@removeme.cryogen.com> wrote in message
news:v_oZ4.2646$Hz.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I have just had the opportunity to visit Bayeux and see the tapestry. The
> associated museum (really just a series of context placing exhibits) has a
> copy of the tapestry and a running commentary interpreting the events and
> characters. Has anyone else seen this? It seemed to someone of my limited
> knowledge of the subject that it was a very Franco-centric view. (I know,
I
> know what else would I expect?) For example the scene where Harold pleges
> allegiance to William, is given the added spin of "Of totally his own free
> will". I think that if one was a prisoner with a sword at your throat you
> would promise anything to live and be free. I'd pledge allegiance to
Kermit
> the frog till I got back to England.
>
> Is it just the French spin doctors? Or is it me that is biassed?
>
> mekon
>
>