Bayeux Tapestry to return to British Museum on loan after 900 years
Posted by Alex09464367@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 48 comments
Posted by Alex09464367@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 48 comments
KJongsDongUnYourFace@reddit
This will probably pave the way for the UK to return some stolen treasures.
They have thousands and thousands of them, im sure that now knowing how it feels for a sacred artifact to be returned, they will opt to spread the love and return some themselves.
What a great moment for humanity. The Brits keeping all these things safe for the world until they are free from colonial violence. They really were playing humanity chess not checkers
Remarkable-Ear854@reddit
I understand the sarcasm in your comment, but I do think this could pave the way for future generations to appreciate the importance of returned cultural artifacts.
There will be a lot of school children seeing the tapestry on British land for the first time in over 900 years, and that must have an effect on at least some of the children. I am sure there will be plenty of adults that feel an emotional connection to the tapestry, as well.
At the very least, this is an historic exchange over 10 years in the works. British law works very much on precedent. It could make it easier for similar exchanges in the future, especially if it is as big of a draw as I think it will be.
Statement_I_am_HK-47@reddit
Its worth noting that the Bayeaux Tapestry is not English. It was made by Norman nuns at the commission of Mathilde of Flanders
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
Should it be returned to Kent or to Denmark where the Normans were from? Or in Bayeux where it was found? The museum is being renovated and it's on loan. The Normandy is getting Lewis chess set and Sutton Hoo artefacts on loan
Oatcake47@reddit
Normans in question were from Normandy funnily enough.
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
There are Norse men, their calm on the English throne was that they were related via the same Danish nobility as the English and that it was supposedly promised to William by King Edward of England.
Oatcake47@reddit
True the inter marrying opened the opportunity for them to take the throne. Some great positioning.
Normans are from Normandy. Norse, are from Norway.
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
It looks like I didn't make self clear, they are called Normans because they come from the North.
This is the Viking / Norsemen who pertain became the 1st Duke of Normandy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo
This is the origin of the word Normandy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsemen
Oatcake47@reddit
But they came from Normandy. I came from the Fertile Crescent if you think about it like that.
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
There is a difference between recent history like 911 to 1066 and the migration of early human history.
Like the Filipinos/Filipinas in Hawaii and Koreans in Uzbekistan. But saying you're middle Eastern because you're ancestors team their thousands of years ago is a bit different.
Oatcake47@reddit
The Duke of Normandy took the throne of England 1066. He was a Norman from Normandy. Normandy was considered a thing as of 911, and yes prior to that a settler from Denmark kinda way. So yeah thats the same as saying all Scots are actually Picts, Britons, Celts. Or that they are all Irish. Stopping when it suits isn’t facts.
So a very very thin link there my man, it was still the Duke of Normandy from Normandy.
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
Do you really not see the difference between 117 and 54,000?
117 years is only about 2 human lifespans between the formation of the house of Normandy and William the bastard (later on William the Conqueror)
Are the children and grandchildren of the Hong Kong people who came over here no longer Asian nor Hong Kongers?
Oatcake47@reddit
Back then more like 4-5 generations.
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
Counter to popular beliefs people didn't die very young especially not the nobility.
The high infant mortality makes the average seem low.
For noblemen who survived until the 21st birthday has a life expectancy of their 50's or 60's
Peasants were not so fortunate being 40's or 50's if they survived to the 21st birthday
Oatcake47@reddit
Between Rolo in 911 and William in 1066 there where 6 generations. So in this instance during a turbulent period of Europe 4-5 was a not bad guess.
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
You didn't read my comment then, I said from when William the bastard was born is 117 years.
Oatcake47@reddit
You really have chosen your Hastings haven’t you.
Rollo I 911 (Signing of the treaty that forms Normandy) William I Richard I (Bastard) Richard II Robert I William I (Bastard) 1066 (Takes the crown of England)
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
I'm not too sure what you're getting at here, but before William became William the Contour he was William the Bastard.
Let me hopefully clear stuff up.
Only about two generations when William was born making him second generation Danish nobility living in Normandy. He still had family living in Scandinavia and England.
There has been about about 2000 generations between you and the first people living in Europe.
Can you say the same about the Fertile Crescent?
Do you tell 2nd generation Indian people living in the UK they are not Indian, but only British?
Oatcake47@reddit
Ah yes William the contour who famously defeated Harold the protractor!
You keep moving your goal posts, this convo was summed up like a day ago. Now it’s just entertainment.
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
I'm not moving anything, go make and look I said 117, that is when he was born.
Oatcake47@reddit
He was born 1035
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
I'm afraid you have the dates modeled up he was born 1028, father's death in 1035
https://www.royal.uk/william-the-conqueror
Oatcake47@reddit
Thank you for the correction. Don’t think I could face the weekend otherwise.
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
Thanks for the engagement boost, I would have liked to have said your acting in good faith but can't. So I will just say have a weekend.
Statement_I_am_HK-47@reddit
Normans are from Normandy. They are descendant of Norse people, sure, but if you were to ask them, they would say they are neither French nor Danish, and put an axe in your skull for suggesting otherwise.
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
Why are you so confident? Plus I don't think they would say they are French nor Normandy-er that type of national identity hasn't been introduced yet most people if asked would identify with a religion over national identities.
But we're talking about categorising them in the terms of modern definitions
Statement_I_am_HK-47@reddit
I read from historians. You can too.
Norman isn't a nationality, nor did they exclusively identify by religion. You think if a man from Paris comes to Caen and asks another man "What are you?" they would reply "I'm a christian?" No shit, dude, everyone within 2000 miles is a Christian. You'd have to go all the way to Poland to meet someone who wasn't in 1066. They answered with regional ethnonyms. And for the record, yes, there were people using the 1066 equivalent of "French" to describe themselves, mainly around the region of central France around Paris, which was then called Ile-de-France "The Frankish Island". By the 900s, the term was the exact same as it is in modern French. Français. To the north? Those people called themselves Normaundsand the French to the south called them Normands; in Latin it was written as Nortmanni and probably came from hundreds of years before THAT as "Nortmann" from Frankish or "Nordmadr" from Old Norse.
The greatest mistake you can make looking at history is to believe there was ever a time when a culture was not changing. There is no starting point for a culture. They just keep moving.
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
You massively misunderstood my point.
Back in the time of the Norman invasion people didn't identify with national identities like I'm a American, English, German but if asked what they are they would say I'm Catholic or I'm Calvinist, Protestant, Orthodox, Anabaptism, or some other type.
It wouldn't be until the 18th and 19th centuries that people started saying them [country demonym].
I'm sure you can find both dedicated on it but I remember reading about it in The rise and fall of the Habsburg empire.
The following is where I stop the reading if you would like a responds please reply with more civil language. I would like to refer you to the rules of sub.
Statement_I_am_HK-47@reddit
You massively misunderstood THE point.
Good thing no one is saying that, dude. "Normaund" isn't a nationality, nor is "Francais". Its a regional demonym. "Angle" and "Saxon" aren't nationalities either, people still used them.
Almost none of these terms were in usage in the time in which we are discussion and most would not be used for another 500 years. You're not multinational, bro, you are clearly Western. Probably American, since this list is so Prot-based. Bro, you have no earthly idea what you're talking about and essentially lumping pre-modern time periods together. Stop watching tv like its historical study.
Cry. I said "no shit dude" because your assertion someone would identify as Christian when everybody anybody would meet in what is now either England or France would be under the Catholic church is not only so obvious an answer as to be useless, and therefore a dumb suggestion.
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
I'm not even going dignify that with a responds, they were clearly examples are not what they would actuary say.
Statement_I_am_HK-47@reddit
Considering it was held as the property of a Norman cathedral, Normandy. Man, you're just dumb all over today.
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
Bayeux Tapestry, the 11th-century Romanesque art, is the property of the French State. The city of Bayeux, in Normandy, serves as its legal custodian and has been its home for the vast majority of its existence.
Made in Kent and discovered in Bayeux, it has the highly skilled Anglo-Saxon needlework tradition known as Opus Anglicanum
You're Dead to Me - The Bayeux Tapestry
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0cgn8tz
But that isn't my question, if we're talking about where should it go based on cultural heritage, who should it belong to?
Statement_I_am_HK-47@reddit
I don't buy the Odo Theory. That his retainers are featured in it isn't enough of a selling point. The Bayeax tapestry was in his cathedral, but the cathedral was basically in the hands of the House of Normandy as a whole, and the tapestry had long been called "Mathilde's"
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
Do you have anything to support what you're saying?
Statement_I_am_HK-47@reddit
Which part, that William was pushing out Anglo-Saxon nobles? That the Bayeux tapestry was in Odo's cathedral? That Mathilde was credited with it? Pretty well attested if you actually knew this subject. Look up the Harrying of the North, or just read any history of the conquest. Its a lot like asking for a source on who conquered England, you know? Asking for sources is a noble effort, but not on obvious shit for which you ought to have done the required reading.
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
This is my comment below, to which you said
"I don't buy the Odo Theory"
So what part of what I said do you disagree with?
My comment copied from above
Bayeux Tapestry, the 11th-century Romanesque art, is the property of the French State. The city of Bayeux, in Normandy, serves as its legal custodian and has been its home for the vast majority of its existence.
Made in Kent and discovered in Bayeux, it has the highly skilled Anglo-Saxon needlework tradition known as Opus Anglicanum
You're Dead to Me - The Bayeux Tapestry
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0cgn8tz
But that isn't my question, if we're talking about where should it go based on cultural heritage, who should it belong to?
Remarkable-Ear854@reddit
I think that there is a case that all the places you have mentioned have a shared cultural heritage with the Bayeux Tapestry, and I would fully support a movement by Danes who would want to have a loan of the tapestry.
It is historical and has cultural significance to more than one people. Why can't they all own it, in a unique way that acknowledges the historical importance it may have to different groups?
Remarkable-Ear854@reddit
That is a very good point. I do think it's interesting how much of a cultural touchstone the tapestry is, despite not being English.
ExactLetterhead9165@reddit
It's not actually known who commissioned it, nor who did the actual embroidery. The only thing that is known for sure is that it found us its way to Bayeux Cathedral
-dEbAsEr@reddit
Why?
Why is this so definite?
What’s so incredibly special about the Bayeux tapestry, that it would have some sort of effect on school kids, that the million other artefacts in the British Museum wouldn’t?
KJongsDongUnYourFace@reddit
Unfortunately, the UK still has various laws that specifically prevent the return of the artifacts they stole
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202311/1302722.shtml
Oatcake47@reddit
Museums in Scotland are making attempts to send artefact’s back. Most recent was a totem pole that wash pinched from Canada. So now it’s in a visitor centre in Canada not Edinburgh.
nicethingslover@reddit
So, do the Brits demand it is returned to them and it may stay home indefinitely? Or are they ok with the French taking care of their stuff as they have for the past 900 years? Asking because if the Brits are actually ok with it, why give back what they have from abroad?
As a Dutchman I would like to see Starry Night returned. But then again, Holland was never a colony of New York so I do see why that comparison may be out of place.
salizarn@reddit
I mean Starry Night was sold to the Museum of Modern Art in New York by its legitimate owner.
It's a bit more problematic with a lot of the stuff in the British Museum.
AppleDane@reddit
Finders keepers, shut up!
brydeswhale@reddit
So, wait, who did they have to steal it from? When are they going to invade some unrelated country and pack it home hidden amongst other stolen items?
Alex09464367@reddit (OP)
Holding onto it while the Bayeux museum is being renovated. France is getting Lewis chess set and Sutton Hoo.
The age of 'acquiring’ items is over.
empleadoEstatalBot@reddit
Maintainer | Source Code | Stats