© Michael Leete 2005

COPYRIGHT NOTICE: No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, for any purpose,
without the prior written permission of the author, Michael Leete.

CHAPTER III

MATILDA

The sympathetic treatment of Harold, earl of Wessex and king of England, is more indicative of a woman's touch in the Tapestry than of a man's command. This does not necessarily disbar Odo as the Tapestry's patron since the designer, who was possibly a woman, might have inserted her own scenes for her own reasons. It is, however a straw in the wind. As it happens, there is a record of only one other English 'hanging' that closely corresponds to the Tapestry1. It was commissioned by Æthelfleda, the widow of earldorman Byrhtnoth of Essex and was given by her to the church at Ely2. Byrhtnoth, with his swan-white hair and immense frame, was commemorated in one of the best of the surviving Old English poems, the Battle of Maldon. Here, he is revealed as an Anglo-Saxon warrior of epic stature who met his death whilst defending his country against its foe3 - the Norse raiders in his case but the parallel with Harold and the Normans is clear. In the poem, Byrhtnoth had trapped the Vikings on the island of Northey in the estuary of the river Blackwater but quixotically allowed them to cross a narrow causeway to the mainland to fight on equal terms. The Vikings defeated him and cut off his head. The monks from Ely recovered the body and buried it at their cathedral. If there had been time to embroider a hanging that included the heroic fight near Maldon, a comparison between Byrhtnoth and Harold would have been even more striking. For example, Harold might earlier have trapped the Normans in Hastings, leaving them no choice, as it might have been with the Vikings, but to sail away empty-handed. But Harold was not in time to do this and he allowed them to come out of Hastings to the battle where he was killed in an epic fight against his country's invaders. As for Byrhtnoth, his decision to allow the Vikings across the causeway does not, with hindsight, look felicitous.

Paraphrasing the remark of Margot Asquith about the famous recruiting poster of Lord Kitchener and his pointing finger (Figure 10), he may not have been a great general but he was a great poem4. The significant point, however, is that we know that lay owners bequeathed hangings from their own homes to monastic churches ...5

Another straw is that there was a huge fire in Bayeux cathedral in 1106 and if the Tapestry had been there on that date it is miraculous that it escaped destruction. Lastly, perhaps a third straw concerns the early part of the Tapestry. Odo did not go on the expedition into Brittany and many of the scenes depicting it can have had little interest for him. He would only have been concerned with justifying his half-brother's invasion of England as the right course for an honourable man against an arrogant perjurer. That is to say, Harold's arrival as an ambassador from king Edward to bequeath the kingdom of England to duke William and Harold's famous oath to confirm the bequest. In fact, since the Tapestry alone places the oath-taking in Bayeux (Panel 59), it would have been a singular opportunity to portray himself supervising the solemn moment. As it is, bishop Odo does not appear in the Tapestry with certainty until he is specifically named at the conference with his two brothers (Panel 113). Before that, an un-named cleric is in the scene where William orders a fleet to be built and another, named as a bishop, says grace when they all sit down for dinner in Hastings (Panel 112) and even then, as we have seen, he is centrally placed but does not get the attention that Odo would have deemed his due.

The bishop of Bayeux has been the front-runner as patron of the Tapestry for nearly 180 years. From being first proposed in 1824, scholarly accretions have been attached to his supposed patronage so that consideration of anybody else is viewed as unthinkable … however much we may think of it! The fact is that the points in his favour are not immovably strong, and hardly stronger, on examination, than those in favour of queen Matilda. Odo's primary claim is based on the fact that the Tapestry was definitely at Bayeux when it 're-appeared' in the inventory of 1476 and secondly that he is portrayed more than once in it. This is absolutely true but we do not know how the Tapestry ended. If, for example, the missing piece culminated in Matilda's coronation6 she would eclipse in a single scene all mention of Odo. Furthermore, Odo missed at least two excellent opportunities to portray himself in a prominent position. Firstly during the oath-taking at Bayeux and secondly when the Normans were all making their confessions and attending Mass during the night before the battle. Of course, duchess Matilda is not portrayed with Harold while he was in Normandy but her presence, at that point, would not have added to the story (in which the flow and pace are inexorable) and might, perhaps, have irritated her husband by reminding him of her talks with Harold, long into the night. One thing, at least, is certain. Matilda does not appear at all in the Tapestry, as we now have it.

The early scenes in the Tapestry contain many of its mysteries. Odo would have had to enquire specifically about most of the details concerning Harold but it is easy to imagine that many of them were well known to William's diminutive duchess Matilda. In spite of her unswerving loyalty to William, she will have been charmed by Harold - as were many of his contemporaries before her. In contrast, William was probably monosyllabic in casual conversation. The accident of his birth was a very serious matter to him and had possibly made him introspective and self-contained except when people were so ill-advised as to make jokes about bastards in his hearing. At such times, no doubt, his vocabulary became as wide and varied as anyone could wish and the jokers were in danger of having their hands and feet hacked off! Of Harold's sojourn in Rouen, it was written that he and Matilda sat up talking far into the night7 after William had gone to bed for Harold, too, was surely charmed by the vital and lovely little duchess. Quite apart from the information that Harold and Matilda must have shared, consider, in particular, the incident in which Harold rescued two Norman soldiers from the quicksand at the estuary of the river Couesnon8 (Panel 45). William himself and, possibly, William of Poitiers were the only two prime sources for the incident after 1066 unless, improbably, the details had fallen into the public domain in Normandy. William probably mentioned the episode to Matilda because it will have made a deep impression on him, but would he have mentioned it to his half-brother, Odo? Suppose, he might have thought, that Harold had drowned. How would king Edward react to a letter along the lines of, Dear cousin Edward, I regret to inform you that your brother-in-law, Harold Godwinesson, was drowned yesterday in the river Couesnon while we were on our way to attack duke Conan at Dol …? Would the English not assume that Harold had been murdered? The consequence might easily have been an invasion of Normandy by an English expeditionary force bent upon exacting retribution or, at least, massive compensation. Even if the English did not attack him, any future ambitions regarding the crown of England would have been thwarted at a stroke.

Visualising Matilda as a person is very difficult. Her tomb was examined in 1961 and the bones in it were consistent with a woman of about 50 inches in height. Unfortunately the tomb had already been disturbed and the bones may not have been Matilda. William of Jumièges called her 'a very beautiful and noble girl of royal stock'9. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder and William of Jumièges, partly dependant upon ducal approval for his history of them, may not have been telling the whole truth. However, this seems to be all the information that we have, so we might as well accept it. Her relationship with William, her husband, may have been stormy at times but no scandals whatsoever have been attributed to either of them.

There are three stories about Matilda that fall into a legendary category but, true or false, they may illustrate her character precisely.

When William first proposed matrimony sometime in 1049 she will have been about seventeen years old. Matilda is reported to have said to her father, "J'aimerais mieux être nonne voilée que donnée à un bâtard!10" Evidently this was related to William who promptly went to her home, forced his way inside and, as they say round Newcastle on Tyne, 'slapped her around a bit.' As a result, she declared that she would marry nobody else! And that, of course, is what she did. In another incident at Caen, William was said to be dragging her through the town by the hair somewhere near 'la Croix Pleureuse de Vauxcelles11'. She was astounded and terrified by the indifference of the passers-by and exclaimed, "Oh, froide rue, froide rue …" from which the rue Froide was named. That William suffered remorse for this episode is witnessed by the fact that his Laws later included special penalties for husbands who abused their wives by pulling their hair. William and Matilda had four sons and perhaps as many as six daughters. She loved her husband and she loved her children. She once said, "If my son Robert were dead and buried seven feet in the earth … and I could bring him back to life with my own blood, I would shed my own life blood for him.12"

Above all, William trusted Matilda completely and gave her special powers to rule in Normandy in his absence. The idea that she spent her time stitching the Tapestry is ridiculous but she was an expert needlewoman and she did embellish some of William's garments13. When she died, on 3rd November 1083, William must have ordered her beautiful epitaph and his grief was deep and long (Figure 11). Her Will mentioned an Anglo-Saxon embroiderer at Winchester who was making a chasuble to her order14. The Will also mentions a robe now being embroidered in England. In the Domesday Survey, in Wiltshire, another Anglo-Saxon lady named Leofgyth15 was retained to make gold embroidery for William and Matilda. Matilda, evidently, valued and appreciated the medium of embroidery as well as being, herself, expert at it. Unfortunately, her Will does not mention any tapestry. As early as 1812, Abbé de la Rue, a Canon at Bayeux cathedral and professor at Caen16, was arguing against Queen Matilda as the patron in favour of the Empress Matilda. In particular, the Abbé found no mention of the Tapestry in the Will of queen Matilda or in any Will or Charters of her age or that of her sons. Instinctively, however, we would expect this Tapestry to be passed on to daughters and grand-daughters.

The earliest sources of information, other than the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, to compare with the story in the Tapestry are all Norman. If Guy, bishop of Amiens, did write the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio he probably wrote it before leaving Normandy in 1068 which would make it the very earliest of the Norman sources. He was an uncle of Guy, count of Ponthieu, so would have been well placed to obtain full details of the capture and release of earl Harold by his nephew (Panels 13-31). He also escorted Matilda, as her chaplain, to England in time for her coronation held on 11 May 1068. It could be, however, that the Carmen should be re-dated to about 1100, some twenty-five years after Guy had died, but the debate seems to be continuing. Nevertheless, Matilda and Guy of Amiens will certainly have talked together on their journey about the events of two and three years earlier.

William, a monk of Jumièges, was engaged in writing Gesta Normannorum Ducum at the time of the invasion and it is thought that he probably wrote down the events of 1066 in about the year 1070. He claimed that Harold, whose death he placed at the start of the battle of Hastings, had been sent to Normandy by king Edward the Confessor to 'make a promise of fealty to the duke concerning the king's crown, and confirm this by a series of oaths in the Christian way.' Put at its very lowest, his interest in the Norman dukes can hardly have failed to bring him into conversation with Matilda.

Thirdly, William of Poitiers, archdeacon of Lisieux, became a chaplain to duke William and went on the expedition into Brittany in 1064. He was not at Hastings but crossed over to England a little later. He wrote Gesta Guillelmi Ducis Normannorum et Regis Anglorum giving a long and detailed account of the events seen in the Tapestry. It is inconceivable that he and Matilda did not share their information. Historians write of the tangled skein of who, among the Norman sources, saw what. Placing Matilda as a common factor, it may be possible to cut the tangle and admit that, to some extent at least, their information was shared verbally through her and that they produced it in their own way. One thing is certain. None of them mention the Tapestry at all. Not as a source and not as a feature of Bayeux Cathedral. Even Robert Wace, who became a canon at Bayeux sometime after 1155 never mentions it although, as a canon, he can hardly have avoided seeing it if it had been routinely displayed there. Up to a point, the silence of Wace is significant. He followed the Tapestry version of Harold's death rather than the more clinical account in Guy of Amiens but included an earlier blow to the ventail of his helmet17. On the other hand, there are points in which he actively disagrees with the Tapestry version and, in the finale, his version is not a very close parallel of the descriptions of Baudri of Bougeuil. It could be that Wace did not take the Tapestry seriously as a valid source of historical facts. It could be that he agreed with Miss Agnes Strickland that 'the lords of creation' should leave this question, and indeed all others pertaining to the Tapestry, 'to the decision of the ladies, to whose province it belongs18.' It could also be that he never saw the Tapestry because it was not in Bayeux cathedral in his day.

Whereas the fire in Bayeux cathedral in 1106 seems significant in arguing that the Tapestry was not there on that date and, consequently, the main plank in the claim that Odo was the patron is much weakened, the poem by Baudri de Bourgeuil argues strongly, though speculatively, in favour of queen Matilda. That is to say, if Matilda really had a hanging decoration around her chambers depicting the conquest of England19, that hanging was probably the real Bayeux Tapestry, cut into four or more parts. There can be little doubt that Baudri saw and took inspiration for some of his detailed information from the one and only Bayeux Tapestry. Building the invasion fleet (Panels 80-87), references to Halley's Comet (Panel 75) and Harold's death (Panel 169) have been noted in particular20. Where he saw it is quite a different matter. He did not, however, describe the Bayeux Tapestry in his poem. His syntax is rather muddled but he seems to describe an imaginary tapestry of great richness for which he drew upon the Bayeux Tapestry as a 'memorandum' for the details. His poem was dedicated to Adèla countess of Blois, daughter of William and Matilda. The relevant part of the poem began with a description of a wonderful, real tapestry surrounding Adèla's bed, made with strands of gold, silver and silk, and goes on to compare the skill in making this hanging curtain with the mythical skills of Pallas and Arachne. Arachne, the human daughter of a dyer of Colophon, named Idmon, challenged Pallas (Minerva) to a weaving competition21 and presumably would have won an encounter with anyone but a goddess. Even Arachne could see that Minerva had woven a tapestry more splendid than her own. In her humiliation, Arachne hanged herself but Minerva loosened the rope and turned Arachne into a spider. Baudri seems to have imagined that the subject chosen for a subsequent weaving, for which Arachne was evidently restored to human form and joined with Minerva to make a tapestry of unequalled splendour, was the glory of William the Conqueror - promoted from duke to king and then, who knows, perhaps soon to be Emperor. A fabulous tapestry with fine, rich threads and precious gems and pearls placed here and there, that 'contains ships and leaders and names of leaders, if however this hanging existed22.' The point is that the tapestry that Baudri appears to be describing was not the tapestry which 'surrounds the bed of my lady.' It is not either of the mythical works of Minerva and Arachne woven for their competition but an entirely imaginary tapestry, that never existed except in Baudri's imagination. It is a super-tapestry in the likeness of the Bayeux Tapestry, woven in honour of Adèla, excelling anything ever seen before, and it hung in Adèla's apartments. The imaginary tapestry started at the birth of William and continued with scenes which describe scenes in the Bayeux Tapestry because they were taken from it, although he may have had some first hand knowledge of the battle itself23. Indeed, the finale in the mythical tapestry surely described some, or all, of the missing finale of the Bayeux Tapestry. If it did then six or seven scenes are missing. On the night after the battle, the English scatter as in the last scenes that we have. Then there seem to be seven scenes briefly described in the poem:

1.'It was already daylight when the duke orders the standards of victory to be brought forward.'

2.'Then at the behest of the duke, the army attacks the enemy.'

3. 'Some shout from high towers 'The enemy is here!''

4. 'The duke, far from the walls, addresses the captains … 'Let us send our pledge of friendship …''

5. 'The citizens accept the peace …'

6. 'The duke is received with a show of enthusiasm.'

7.'The nobility, people, cities, towns and country likewise establish the duke as king over themselves.24

Searches among the muniments at Bayeux have produced nothing certain about the Tapestry before 1476. Four hundred years does not sound so long if you read it quickly but, today, it represents the time-span back to the end of the Tudors and the accession of the Stuarts. It is just 398 years since Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, which is an event known in England about equally with the battle of Hastings, although the year is less often remembered. In the United States of America, four hundred years is nearly back to pre-history. Sir Walter Raleigh's first settlement in Virginia was in 1584 but that hardly counts because that Colony disappeared. Set against Man's time on earth, four hundred years is but the blink of an eye but set in the period 1070 to 1470 or 1603 to 2003 it spans huge changes in every field of human life and endeavour. Meanwhile, at Bayeux, the cathedral Chapter recorded repairs to a tapestry in 146325. It is far from certain that the tapestry that was repaired was the Bayeux Tapestry but it was implied that the Bayeux Tapestry had been in the cathedral for some time before 1476 so it is very possible that it was. In fact, since the tapestry that was repaired was not described, it is also possible that the Chapter could not then describe it in any detail because it had only recently been donated to the cathedral. This is a huge speculative leap but, once it is accepted that Odo of Bayeux did not present the Tapestry in about 1077 there is no other extant clue, as far as we now know, to date its acquisition by the cathedral. Her husband died in 110226 and Adèla of Blois died as a nun on 8th March 1137 at Marcigny-sur-Loire27 but was buried in her mother's foundation at Caen. The inference must be that she had disposed of any personal property that she wished to bequeath before entering the nunnery. If the Tapestry had been among that property, it narrows the time-gap a little but there is still too much of a gap to be dismissed easily.

The only other hint of a mention occurred in the Court of Burgundy, where an inventory dated 1420 described a large tapestry (at the cathedral, according to Wolfgang Grape) containing no gold thread, showing the conquest of England by William of Normandy28. This reference may not have been probed as much as it might because the usual assumption is that the Bayeux Tapestry was safely in Bayeux at the time. Perhaps, even at this late stage, research among the Wills of the ladies of the counts of Blois and Chartres might disclose a mention of an hitherto unrecognised hanging. There are, of course, many routes that the Tapestry might have taken from Winchester to Burgundy and it is theoretically possible that it was set up in some great house and simply passed through different ownership as one of the un-named fixtures and fittings. For example, supposing that Adèla of Normandy had given the Tapestry to her grand-daughter, Adèla (Alix) of Blois and Champagne, it could have passed without remark down the succession of Capetian kings of France, commencing with Louis VII, Adèla's husband. His successor was Philip II Augustus who, unfortunately, had all the French archives among his military baggage when he was roundly defeated at Frétevel by Richard the Lionheart on 3 July 1194. Therefore, any mention in those archives of the Tapestry has gone for ever. The succession proceeded down to Philip IV29, the Fair, who had three sons that all failed to produce a male heir and who shot themselves in the foot by invoking an old law of the Salian Franks that precluded women from succeeding to the throne. The succession reverted to the other heirs of Philip III, and Philip VI, of the Valois line, was crowned. His son John II, the Good, was captured by the Black Prince at Poitiers and felt that he owed his life to his second son, Philip, to whom he later gave Burgundy thus critically dividing France for some 117 years. The elder son, Charles V, succeeded and managed to recover Normandy. He was followed by his eldest son, Charles VI and his successor, Charles VII of France, was crowned at Rheims on 17 July 1429 with the assistance of Joan of Arc, who he shamefully abandoned to her execution in Rouen on 30 May 1431. Meanwhile, Philip was succeeded in Burgundy by John the Fearless, who was murdered at Montereau in 1419. His death, as his estate passed to his son, Philip the Good of Burgundy, might have been the occasion of the 1420 inventory.

1 The Bayeux Tapestry: History and Bibliography (1988), Shirley Ann Brown. P.23 mentions eight embroderies identified by Auguste Letienne (1924) that predate the Bayeux Tapestry, plus the Maaseik Embroidery.

2 Liber Eliensis (1848 edn); ed D J Stewart p.183. Quoted in English Medieval Embroidery (1938), A G I Christie: She gave to the church at Ely a hanging embroidered with the deeds of her husband, as a memorial to his noble character (c.991). The Latin is quoted in Anglo-Saxon Art (1982), Charles Reginald Dodwell: Uxor quippe eius … cortinam gestis viri sui intextam atque depictam in memoriam probitatis eius huic ecclisie donavit.

3 Anglo-Saxon Art (1982), Charles Reginald Dodwell: The hanging was given to Ely eo tempore quo vir idem suus interfectus est et humatus …The assumption is that the hanging was already in existence in Byrhtnoth's home when he was killed at the battle of Maldon (c.991) since there would not have been time to have a hanging made after the battle and before his burial at Ely (some 60 miles away by land).

4 When Margot Asquith saw the Kitchener poster ('Your Country Needs You' on the front cover of London Opinion) drawn by Alfred Leete in 1914, she remarked that General Kitchener might not be a great man but at least he was a great poster.

5 Anglo-Saxon Art (1982), Charles Reginald Dodwell: cites Wulfwaru and Æthelgifu and their gifts to Bath and St Albans. Extracts from Dorothy Whitelock (a) Wills: a set of bed-clothing with tapestry and curtain. (b) The Will of Æthelgifu: her best wall-hanging.

6 William's coronation is the most likely finale to the Tapestry, as portrayed in Jan Messent's excellent reconstruction, but the fact is that we do not, and can never, know the original ending. Baudri de Bourgeuil also ended his imaginary tapestry with the duke being established as a king.

7 King Harald's Saga, translation 1966 by Magnus Magnusson & Hermann Pálsson.

8 Said to have been at the Gué de l'Epine.

9 Origins of Heraldry (1980), Beryl Platts: Baldwin I had married Judith, daughter of Charles the Bald of France. That is to say, Judith was a great grand-daughter of Charlemagne who's blood, for several hundred years after his death, was the elixir of Europe.

10 Guillaume le Bâtard Conquérant (1946), La Varende ex Chronique de Tours, p.102. I would rather be a veiled nun than given to a bastard.

11 Guillaume le Bâtard Conquérant (1946), La Varende ex Chronique de Tours, p.103.

12 1066, The Year of Battles (1998), Frank McLynn, p. 39.

13 William of Malmesbury; indirectly quoted by David Bernstein, The Mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry (1986), page 202, note 7.

14 English Medieval Embroidery (1938), A G I Christie: . . . being embroidered at Winchester by Alderet's wife.

15 The land of Oda and Other King's Thegns: Leofgyth holds KNOOK. Her husband held it TRE, and it paid geld for 3 hides. There is land for 2 ploughs, which are there, with 1 slave, and 4 villans and 4 bordars. There is a mill rendering 15s, and 5 acres of meadow, (and) pastyre half a league long and 1 furlong wide. It is worth 3. This Leofgyth made and makes the gold fringe of the king and the queen.

16 The Norman Conquest (1875), E A Freeman. Vol. III. p.566. The arguments of the Abbé are summarised. They also include the 1106 fire and the points of non-agreement with Wace (c.1100-c.1174) to date the Tapestry to the time of Empress Matilda (1102-1167).

17 The rigid neck guard of the Sutton Hoo helmet might be called a ventail so that such helmets probably existed in1066 but the Tapestry shows only bowl-shaped helmets with heavy nasal guards - similar to the seventh century 'pioneer' helmet found at Wollaston, Northants. In all cases in the Tapestry, helmets have no neck guards and appear to have been worn over mail hoods - an arrangement that must have been both hot and uncomfortable.

18 Lives of the Queens of England (1840), Agnes Strickland. Her view was that Queen Matilda was the patron of the Tapestry and that she actively took part in its embroidery.

19 The Battle of Hastings (1998), Jim Bradbury, p.224, quoting Oeuvres Poétiques, edited by P Abrahams (Paris 1926) wrote: Matilda had a series of tapestries dealing with four subjects, and which she herself had made, displayed round her chamber. One set dealt with the conquest of England. Unfortunately, the work of Phyllis Abrahams cannot always be relied upon.

20 The Adelae Comitissae of Baudri of Bourgeuil and the Bayeux Tapestry (1994), Shirley Ann Brown and translation by Michael W Herren.

21 Minerva depicted her battle with Neptune which was so realistic that people drew back from the spray of the tapestry sea. Arachne chose the amorous adventures of the gods.

22 See also: If you could believe that this weaving really existed you would read true things on it ...

23 Feudal England (1909), J H Round: pp371-373 describing the English being tormented by arrows until they broke ranks.

24 Translation by Michael W Herren.

25 MS 214, Chapter of Bayeux; Comptes se la Fabrique. I am not sure what this means ? Accounts OF (ie de) the fabric, perhaps, or ON (ie sur) the fabric. In any event, this might have been the time when the Tapestry was joined into a single piece if it were the case that it had only recently been donated to the cathedral in several pieces.

26 Stephen of Blois was killed at the second Battle of Ramleh (Rama). He had left the siege of Antioch in 1098 just before Antioch was taken and, by the time he had reached home, the story of his departure had been converted into a story of serious cowardice. Adèla was furiously ashamed of him and he was driven to return to the Holy Land to salvage something of his own honour. At that time, king Baldwin (... not a man with a highly developed sense of honour ... Steven Runciman) slipped away from Ramleh with a few companions in the night before the Egyptian attack, which killed about 400 knights, including Stephen, and sent 100 others into captivity.

27 Marcigny-sur-Loire, Soane et Loire, 71275. This is within the present Province of Burgundy. An Abbot of Cluny, known as Saint Hughes (1049-1109) founded the Abbaye Féminine at Marcigny -sur-Loire. The most well-known Abbess of the epoch was Marie de Fontevrault (born 1109; died 1190).

28 The Bayeux Tapestry (1994), Wolfgang Grape. p.23. He may be wrong about the cathedral. The Bayeux Tapestry: History & Bibliography (1988), Shirley Ann Brown states that: Recherches sur le commerce, la fabrication et l'usage des étoffes de soie, d'or et d'argent et autres tissus précieux en Occident, principalement en France, pendant le moyen âge (1852-1854, Paris: Crapelet), Francisque Xavier MICHEL Mentions in passing, that a 1420 inventory of the court of Burgundy lists a large tapestry, without gold, which represents the conquest of England by William the Conqueror. This indicates to him that the BT was not unique in its day. (See vol. 2 pp.77 & 357). On the other hand, it might equally indicate that the tapestry listed in the Burgundy inventory was none other than the Bayeux Tapestry. Francisque Michel refers the reader to Les Ducs de Bourgogne, IIe part, tom II, page 270, no. 4277. A copy of this book has not been traced in England.

29 Famous for pillaging the treasury of the Knights Templar and for the prolonged torture and execution by burning of Jacques Molay, the Grand Master.