Excellent narration and illustration! I have seen the original twice, once as a child with my parents, and once as a grandmother with my daughters and grandchildren. It is the ultimate story-line of the political contest across the English Channel between England and France, being entangled by leadership of the aristocracy. The description of this lengthy, heavy cloth, cleverly decorated by em-'broidered' - ie 'braided', or woven stitches, is called a 'tapestry' from 'tapis' - ie a carpet or wall-hanging. it may not have been joined all together originally, but been made in manageable sections, like 'leaves' of a book.
@UNKNOWN-kp7nn Жыл бұрын
good one as always ❤
@TheLegendaryLore Жыл бұрын
Glad you like it, brother!
@mrmarmellow555 Жыл бұрын
Also Normans ALTHOUGH they spoke Old French WEREN't "REALLY 🇫🇷FRANKS!⚜️" Many say William's GRAND-FATHER Was #ROLLO The Grand & #Cuning_VIKING & A North 🇩🇰🇳🇴Man🇮🇲
@porpedroiiebertrand5 ай бұрын
just visited it last week in Bayeux, and let me tell you this: it’s something completely different seeing it in person…
@applin121 Жыл бұрын
Hastings was brutal, even by the standards of the time. And it went on all day, because everyone knew what was at stake. After the battle, what remained of Harold’s body was apparently only identifiable by certain marks on his torso, known only to his mistress. And strictly speaking it’s an embroidery not a tapestry. As far as I’m aware the battlefield has never been excavated. Great choice 👍🏻
@TheLegendaryLore Жыл бұрын
Thanks, brother! Yeah, it's kinda curious why it's known as the Bayeux Tapestry, not the Bayeux Embroidery. I'm thinking it has something do do with its large size and the way it is displayed.
@ChelleMEis3 ай бұрын
@@TheLegendaryLore Tapestries are how the ancient English recorded their history. Tapestry literally means history woven into cloth. If you were from the UK you would just automatically know that tapestries means "our woven history."
@RuiNobrega Жыл бұрын
Excelent video. Thank you.
@TheLegendaryLore Жыл бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it, brother!
@morrigambist6 ай бұрын
If you're lucky enough to know some Latin, it's exciting to follow the text along with the narration.
@haikarate38768 ай бұрын
Thanks!
@citizenVader4 ай бұрын
The local church here where I live has a copy of the original. It's quite long
@gerardversini14942 ай бұрын
Il y a quelques personnages comme Lewyn ou Gyr qui sont cités. Qui sont-ils ?
@reet-ko9lg Жыл бұрын
Can you do Rime of the Ancient Mariner
@TheLegendaryLore Жыл бұрын
I'll look into it :)
@chris37388 ай бұрын
What was it that Harold swore to William on the holy relics? Why would he offer the throne of England to William if he knew he was in line to it himself? Why did he help William in his battle against the Bretons?
@TheLegendaryLore8 ай бұрын
My guess is that Harold was simply opportunistic: he swore the oath to get himself released, and he helped William for that same reason and/or to gain a potential future ally - or maybe he was just caught up in the war against the Bretons and acted accordingly. It's possible that he didn't know he had a realistic chance of becoming king, and when the assembly elected him as the new king, he didn't want to let go of such a great opportunity. Alternatively, he never really cared about the oath as long as he could get back home, become king, and keep William at bay.
@chris37388 ай бұрын
@@TheLegendaryLore Thanks! That all sounds quite plausible to me. I wonder why Edward sent Harold to France in the first place... Makes me think that maybe the Saxons were allying with the Normans against the Bretons. But then why would Harold be arrested upon his landing? Too many mysteries!
@TheLegendaryLore8 ай бұрын
@@chris3738 History is full of these mysteries :) According to Gesta Guillelmi and several other sources, Edward had promised the throne to William, so Harold may have been sent to affirm this promise in some way. Now that I think about it, that may well be the main reason Harold swore the oath. It may even have been his purpose of the journey. Those are a lot of 'may' though, and the author wrote the book for William. Similar criticisms can be raised about the other sources, so who knows.