If you're interested to see some high resolution images of the tapestry there's one here [0] and Stefan Milo recently did a tour [1] which I really enjoyed - it captures a bit of the wonder that I imagine seeing it in person must evoke
Humm, honest question, why did the royals from the Norman conquest on start speaking french?
I guess the Normans while not being "ethnically" Frank or Gallic at the time, had already been absorbed into "Frank Culture". They were also loose vassals to the king of France at the time as I recollect.
"Ah, l'Angleterre, cette colonie française qui a mal tourné." - G. Clémenceau
In particular anything that happened in the vicinity of the current territory will fall into that, even if at that time it was different, or the people ruling over it where under a different crown.
Frontiers always moved a lot, and we came to accept them as pretty vague and sometimes not really relevant.
I think calling the Norman invasion French was a simplification for children which outgrew its intended audience. They did absorb some of the French (Flemish) aristocracy by marriage and alliance though, and the Flemish played a large part of the colonization of Britain. I've also heard people refer to the subsequent invasions of Ireland and Wales as 'English'.
The Normans accepted the French king as their ruler, even though their lands were ruled separately.
I've always admired the French kings playing the long-game in this. Step by step, over centuries, the French kings took back more and more land from the Normans until it became completely French and the Normans were absorbed into the French kingdom.
Then got their heads chopped off. Arguably the failure of the British monarchs to become absolute monarchs was what saved them from the same fate (Charles I notwithstanding, him being the vent).
Maybe their leaders lost their heads but not the general Norman population. Massacres were common during that period but genocide was never performed, not even against Jews and Gypsies.
I am not sure that is the relevant criterion. The French king as a primus inter pares noble had initially very limited authority over a very limited area. Basically nothing in France was French then, even though they shared State structure and culture, if not strong, direct, central government power.
If you're interested to see some high resolution images of the tapestry there's one here [0] and Stefan Milo recently did a tour [1] which I really enjoyed - it captures a bit of the wonder that I imagine seeing it in person must evoke
[0] https://www.bayeuxmuseum.com/en/the-bayeux-tapestry/discover...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIh5pjzonGg
I was there last year. It's outstanding. It's also a nice little town.
Strange article to make the front page - only two paragraphs long, and no images of the tapestry that it barely talks about.
Not to mention the title - the tapestry was embroidered, not woven (if you exclude the ground fabric, which by itself is just a piece of cloth).
Paywalled
I tried archive.org but the captures I found were all paywalled as well
It was woven by English embroiderers, so it was woven by the victims of the Norman Conquest.
Reading articles in advance of commenting usually helps
I never really understood why the tapestry is considered French. The Norman aristocracy at the time did not take orders from the French crown.
Humm, honest question, why did the royals from the Norman conquest on start speaking french?
I guess the Normans while not being "ethnically" Frank or Gallic at the time, had already been absorbed into "Frank Culture". They were also loose vassals to the king of France at the time as I recollect.
"Ah, l'Angleterre, cette colonie française qui a mal tourné." - G. Clémenceau
--Edited for clarity
We have a very loose notion of what's "French".
In particular anything that happened in the vicinity of the current territory will fall into that, even if at that time it was different, or the people ruling over it where under a different crown.
Frontiers always moved a lot, and we came to accept them as pretty vague and sometimes not really relevant.
I think calling the Norman invasion French was a simplification for children which outgrew its intended audience. They did absorb some of the French (Flemish) aristocracy by marriage and alliance though, and the Flemish played a large part of the colonization of Britain. I've also heard people refer to the subsequent invasions of Ireland and Wales as 'English'.
They had a substantial Breton component too. Neither Norse nor Flemish nor French.
They left french words in the English vocabulary though I thought?
The Normans accepted the French king as their ruler, even though their lands were ruled separately.
I've always admired the French kings playing the long-game in this. Step by step, over centuries, the French kings took back more and more land from the Normans until it became completely French and the Normans were absorbed into the French kingdom.
Then got their heads chopped off. Arguably the failure of the British monarchs to become absolute monarchs was what saved them from the same fate (Charles I notwithstanding, him being the vent).
Maybe their leaders lost their heads but not the general Norman population. Massacres were common during that period but genocide was never performed, not even against Jews and Gypsies.
[dead]
I am not sure that is the relevant criterion. The French king as a primus inter pares noble had initially very limited authority over a very limited area. Basically nothing in France was French then, even though they shared State structure and culture, if not strong, direct, central government power.
And they did not stop at England: https://www.understandingitaly.com/normans-in-italy.html
Would you consider Burgundy at the time part of France?
That depends whether you have watched "Passport to Pimlico".
The tapestry is not considered French
[dead]