The Battle of Hastings never happened

[Coulness]

Thanks to The Sussex Express I can tell you hat the first time I heard this theory was Wednesday 23 January 2019, on Radio 1, Greg James regular feature: ‘Unpopular Opinions’. It made me laugh out loud at the time, because it was just so outrageous, and that might be why I loved it!

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/new...aims-battle-of-hastings-never-happened-133955
Radio 1 listener claims Battle of Hastings never happened
A Radio 1 breakfast show listener today (Wednesday January 23) claimed the Battle of Hastings never happened and called the Bayeux Tapestry the first recorded example of ‘fake news’. A listener called Matt called DJ Greg James during part of the show called Unpopular Opinions where listeners are invited to air their views.
On today’s show, Matt said: “The Battle of Hastings never happened.
“It definitely did not happen. The only proof that you’ve got is the Bayeux Tapestry and that is absolutely fake news. It was cobbled together to make people look good.”
After he was pressed by a shocked Greg James, Matt said he was basing his opinion on ‘lots and lots of facts’. When asked to present these facts, he said: “Our King Harold had a fight all the way up in Yorkshire didn’t he? He fought the King of Norway or something – sent him packing. Marched his army that had already taken a bit of a hiding all the way down to Sussex. He gets there, William the Conqueror is sat in his house. And William the Conqueror has said. ‘Do you really want to go again?’ and King Harold said, ‘No I don’t’. William the Conqueror said, ‘I’ll tell you what, we’ll have the Bayeux Tapestry sewn together, make us both look good. You can take an arrow to the eye, I fought your army off, everyone’s a winner. We don’t have to go toe-to-toe in Hastings again’. And that was it.”
An unconvinced Greg James said he ‘admired’ Matt for his ‘true unpopular opinion’ as he had never heard anyone hold the same opinion.

Some days later they had the lovely Dan Snow come on to respond to the Unpopular Opinion and reassure everyone listening that The Battle of Hastings really did happen and is an important historical fact we can all hang our hats on. I am not a historian, and I don’t have any particular knowledge about this period in time except what we had drilled into us at school (I am Scottish but grew up being taught only English history at school, which has always irked me.). I also fLund Dan Snow‘s rebuttal to be smug and irritating and very light on facts we can verify. (Although he does have a BBC 2 documentary about it, talking mainly about how gruesome war in this time period was, with lots of opportunities for brooding close ups of the actors…) So I decided to see what evidence there is that The Battle of Hastings really did take place- because 1066 is etched into my consciousness as one of the most important dates in all of time, so it must be so, right?

BBC Radio 4 - Homeschool History - Everything you never knew about the Battle of Hastings

This link about the battle, I think aimed at school children in the UK who are studying for exams, suggests that there are many things about the traditional story which may not be true or verifiable. Thanks BBC- although these same things are presented as facts elsewhere on your site…

British Library

According to the British Library‘s ‘Medieval accounts of the Battle of Hastings’:

“On 14 October 1066, William’s forces clashed with an English army near Hastings. Within a century of these events taking place, over a dozen writers had described the battle and its aftermath. Some of these accounts are lengthy, but they contradict each other and do not allow us to reconstruct the battle with any certainty.”

Okay, but there must be relics, right? Loads of people died in this battle. Maybe TV’s trusty Time Team can help?:
New evidence for Battle of Hastings site considered

“Battle Abbey in East Sussex is said to stand on the spot where King Harold died when the English army was routed by the Normans in 1066. But Channel 4's Time Team claims he fell on the site of what is now a mini roundabout on the A2100.“

“There is not another battle in English History which can lay claim to a bibliography even approaching the length of that generated by https://historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/listing/battlefields/hastings/
Hastings and the subsequent Conquest. Secondary sources, whether in the form of monographs or journal articles are legion, and the longest single work, E A Freeman's The History of the Norman Conquest, Its Causes and Its Results (1867-79) runs to six volumes and over a million words. Original and contemporary sources are, however, far fewer in number.”

Finding that a bit unconvincing, although I haven’t actually read any of the sources it cites. I did find:

Archaeologists believe they have found first ever skeleton of Battle of Hastings warrior

“Researchers have found the skeleton of a 45-year-old man in East Sussex, not far from the famous battlefield upon which the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066, according to a report in the BBC. The skull shows six sword blows suggesting the man died in combat and the remains date back to the same period as the famous battle. The circumstances suggest the individual may have been a soldier who fought in the Battle of Hastings. No bones have previously been discovered of anyone who fought and died during the historic event. The skeleton is apparently unique in that it appears to be the only individual ever recorded which could be related to the Norman invasion. A remarkable new story could be unfolding,” said Tim Sutherland, a battlefield expert from the University of York. <…> The Norman invaders were thought to have buried their dead in a mass grave. Although no grave pits of the Normans have been found, it is believed that this is due to the high acidity of the soil, which means all the remains have long deteriorated.”

Okay, but famously the whole saga has been recorded on the Bayeux Tapestry/ Embroidery:

From Odo's Cathedral to the Louvre - The story of the Bayeux Tapestry

“The Bayeux Tapestry was probably commissioned to decorate the new cathedral of Bayeux in the 11th century. The inventory of the cathedral Treasury, dated 1476, includes the Tapestry in the list of artefacts. Its use is described in this inventory as a Church item. The embroidery telling the story of the conquest of England was hung in the nave once a year and kept in a wooden chest in the vestry the rest of the time. The masterpiece thus remained in the Bayeux cathedral for seven centuries, almost unknown. No other document mentions it until the beginning of the 18th century. After the Revolution, in 1794, the Arts Commission for the Bayeux district seized it on behalf of the Nation, thereby ensuring it was protected. According to a well-established local tradition, it was almost cut up in 1792 to make covers for soldiers’ carts, but luckily was saved by a local lawyer, Léonard Lambert-Leforestier.”

We, in the UK, love the Bayeux Tapestry/ Embroidery, and cannot get enough of it and all that it symbolises:

Bayeux Tapestry returns to the UK after more than 900 years

“The tapestry was created in the UK in the eleventh century, shortly after the Battle of Hastings and has been on display in various locations in France since its completion. The Tapestry is now part of the UNESCO Memory of the World Register and depicts the Battle which saw William the Conqueror take the English throne in 1066.”
Prime Minister Theresa May said:

Our shared history is reflected in the loan of the Bayeux Tapestry to the UK in 2022, the first time it will be on British soil in more than 900 years.
The loan of the Tapestry will form part of a wider cultural exchange taking place between Britain and France over the next four years.
I am honoured at the loan of such a precious piece of our shared history which yet again underscores the closeness of the UK-France relationship.

DCMS Secretary, Matt Hancock said:

France and Britain are global cultural leaders with a millennium long recorded history. The Bayeux Tapestry is a fundamental symbol of our history as neighbours. It’s arrival in the UK is a tribute to the strength of our relationship now and in the future.

But is it a contemporary source depicting actual events? Maybe Wikipedia knows?

“The earliest known written reference to the tapestry is a 1476 inventory of Bayeux Cathedral,[6] but its origins have been the subject of much speculation and controversy. French legend maintained the tapestry was commissioned and created by Queen Matilda, William the Conqueror's wife, and her ladies-in-waiting. Indeed, in France, it is occasionally known as La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde ("The Tapestry of Queen Matilda"). However, scholarly analysis in the 20th century concluded it was probably commissioned by William's half-brother, Bishop Odo,[7] who, after the Conquest, became Earl of Kent and, when William was absent in Normandy, regent of England.”

I’m left leaning towards the idea that The Battle of Hastings never happened. I feel in my soul that this means something weighty, which I’m not confident to put into words, but I’m also interested to see if anyone else has thoughts.

 

[DaciaMare]

Thanks to The Sussex Express I can tell you hat the first time I heard this theory was Wednesday 23 January 2019, on Radio 1, Greg James regular feature: ‘Unpopular Opinions’. It made me laugh out loud at the time, because it was just so outrageous, and that might be why I loved it!

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/new...aims-battle-of-hastings-never-happened-133955
Radio 1 listener claims Battle of Hastings never happened
A Radio 1 breakfast show listener today (Wednesday January 23) claimed the Battle of Hastings never happened and called the Bayeux Tapestry the first recorded example of ‘fake news’. A listener called Matt called DJ Greg James during part of the show called Unpopular Opinions where listeners are invited to air their views.
On today’s show, Matt said: “The Battle of Hastings never happened.
“It definitely did not happen. The only proof that you’ve got is the Bayeux Tapestry and that is absolutely fake news. It was cobbled together to make people look good.”
After he was pressed by a shocked Greg James, Matt said he was basing his opinion on ‘lots and lots of facts’. When asked to present these facts, he said: “Our King Harold had a fight all the way up in Yorkshire didn’t he? He fought the King of Norway or something – sent him packing. Marched his army that had already taken a bit of a hiding all the way down to Sussex. He gets there, William the Conqueror is sat in his house. And William the Conqueror has said. ‘Do you really want to go again?’ and King Harold said, ‘No I don’t’. William the Conqueror said, ‘I’ll tell you what, we’ll have the Bayeux Tapestry sewn together, make us both look good. You can take an arrow to the eye, I fought your army off, everyone’s a winner. We don’t have to go toe-to-toe in Hastings again’. And that was it.”
An unconvinced Greg James said he ‘admired’ Matt for his ‘true unpopular opinion’ as he had never heard anyone hold the same opinion.

View attachment 29135​

View attachment 29136​

Some days later they had the lovely Dan Snow come on to respond to the Unpopular Opinion and reassure everyone listening that The Battle of Hastings really did happen and is an important historical fact we can all hang our hats on. I am not a historian, and I don’t have any particular knowledge about this period in time except what we had drilled into us at school (I am Scottish but grew up being taught only English history at school, which has always irked me.). I also fLund Dan Snow‘s rebuttal to be smug and irritating and very light on facts we can verify. (Although he does have a BBC 2 documentary about it, talking mainly about how gruesome war in this time period was, with lots of opportunities for brooding close ups of the actors…) So I decided to see what evidence there is that The Battle of Hastings really did take place- because 1066 is etched into my consciousness as one of the most important dates in all of time, so it must be so, right?

BBC Radio 4 - Homeschool History - Everything you never knew about the Battle of Hastings

This link about the battle, I think aimed at school children in the UK who are studying for exams, suggests that there are many things about the traditional story which may not be true or verifiable. Thanks BBC- although these same things are presented as facts elsewhere on your site…

British Library

According to the British Library‘s ‘Medieval accounts of the Battle of Hastings’:

“On 14 October 1066, William’s forces clashed with an English army near Hastings. Within a century of these events taking place, over a dozen writers had described the battle and its aftermath. Some of these accounts are lengthy, but they contradict each other and do not allow us to reconstruct the battle with any certainty.”

Okay, but there must be relics, right? Loads of people died in this battle. Maybe TV’s trusty Time Team can help?:
New evidence for Battle of Hastings site considered

“Battle Abbey in East Sussex is said to stand on the spot where King Harold died when the English army was routed by the Normans in 1066. But Channel 4's Time Team claims he fell on the site of what is now a mini roundabout on the A2100.“

“There is not another battle in English History which can lay claim to a bibliography even approaching the length of that generated by https://historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/listing/battlefields/hastings/
Hastings and the subsequent Conquest. Secondary sources, whether in the form of monographs or journal articles are legion, and the longest single work, E A Freeman's The History of the Norman Conquest, Its Causes and Its Results (1867-79) runs to six volumes and over a million words. Original and contemporary sources are, however, far fewer in number.”

Finding that a bit unconvincing, although I haven’t actually read any of the sources it cites. I did find:

Archaeologists believe they have found first ever skeleton of Battle of Hastings warrior

“Researchers have found the skeleton of a 45-year-old man in East Sussex, not far from the famous battlefield upon which the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066, according to a report in the BBC. The skull shows six sword blows suggesting the man died in combat and the remains date back to the same period as the famous battle. The circumstances suggest the individual may have been a soldier who fought in the Battle of Hastings. No bones have previously been discovered of anyone who fought and died during the historic event. The skeleton is apparently unique in that it appears to be the only individual ever recorded which could be related to the Norman invasion. A remarkable new story could be unfolding,” said Tim Sutherland, a battlefield expert from the University of York. <…> The Norman invaders were thought to have buried their dead in a mass grave. Although no grave pits of the Normans have been found, it is believed that this is due to the high acidity of the soil, which means all the remains have long deteriorated.”

Okay, but famously the whole saga has been recorded on the Bayeux Tapestry/ Embroidery:

From Odo's Cathedral to the Louvre - The story of the Bayeux Tapestry

“The Bayeux Tapestry was probably commissioned to decorate the new cathedral of Bayeux in the 11th century. The inventory of the cathedral Treasury, dated 1476, includes the Tapestry in the list of artefacts. Its use is described in this inventory as a Church item. The embroidery telling the story of the conquest of England was hung in the nave once a year and kept in a wooden chest in the vestry the rest of the time. The masterpiece thus remained in the Bayeux cathedral for seven centuries, almost unknown. No other document mentions it until the beginning of the 18th century. After the Revolution, in 1794, the Arts Commission for the Bayeux district seized it on behalf of the Nation, thereby ensuring it was protected. According to a well-established local tradition, it was almost cut up in 1792 to make covers for soldiers’ carts, but luckily was saved by a local lawyer, Léonard Lambert-Leforestier.”

View attachment 29137​

We, in the UK, love the Bayeux Tapestry/ Embroidery, and cannot get enough of it and all that it symbolises:

Bayeux Tapestry returns to the UK after more than 900 years

“The tapestry was created in the UK in the eleventh century, shortly after the Battle of Hastings and has been on display in various locations in France since its completion. The Tapestry is now part of the UNESCO Memory of the World Register and depicts the Battle which saw William the Conqueror take the English throne in 1066.”
Prime Minister Theresa May said:

DCMS Secretary, Matt Hancock said:


But is it a contemporary source depicting actual events? Maybe Wikipedia knows?

“The earliest known written reference to the tapestry is a 1476 inventory of Bayeux Cathedral,[6] but its origins have been the subject of much speculation and controversy. French legend maintained the tapestry was commissioned and created by Queen Matilda, William the Conqueror's wife, and her ladies-in-waiting. Indeed, in France, it is occasionally known as La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde ("The Tapestry of Queen Matilda"). However, scholarly analysis in the 20th century concluded it was probably commissioned by William's half-brother, Bishop Odo,[7] who, after the Conquest, became Earl of Kent and, when William was absent in Normandy, regent of England.”

I’m left leaning towards the idea that The Battle of Hastings never happened. I feel in my soul that this means something weighty, which I’m not confident to put into words, but I’m also interested to see if anyone else has thoughts.

As with anything that "happened" before the 16th century...you have good reason to doubt it.

 

[usselo]

“The earliest known written reference to the tapestry is a 1476 inventory of Bayeux Cathedral,[6] but its origins have been the subject of much speculation and controversy. French legend maintained the tapestry was commissioned and created by Queen Matilda, William the Conqueror's wife, and her ladies-in-waiting. Indeed, in France, it is occasionally known as La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde ("The Tapestry of Queen Matilda"). However, scholarly analysis in the 20th century concluded it was probably commissioned by William's half-brother, Bishop Odo,[7] who, after the Conquest, became Earl of Kent and, when William was absent in Normandy, regent of England.”

I’m left leaning towards the idea that The Battle of Hastings never happened. I feel in my soul that this means something weighty, which I’m not confident to put into words, but I’m also interested to see if anyone else has thoughts.

In some or other Battle of Hastings documentary, they comment that no evidence of the battle has been found on the site. Possibly Time Team's Season 20 episode '1066 The Lost Battlefield' episode (Youtube video below. Blocked in the UK but perhaps viewable to some):



The Bayeaux Tapestry appears to be a visual version of a technique where a yarn is twisted around threads of evidence, plumped up with tufts of belly button lint and called 'history'.

It used to needle me. Now I like unravelling it.

The yarn-spinners (the Romantic artists and writers of Germany, England and America, et al) also created history using heroic paintings and memorable ballads, poems and plays.

A good example comes from a key moment in the history of the USA:

Download Video​

Taken for a ride. Source: Falling Skies

From Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:

The Tales of a Wayside Inn, modeled roughly on Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales and published in 1863, reveals his narrative gift. The first poem, “Paul Revere’s Ride,” became a national favourite.

... this folk ballad recalls a hero of the American Revolution and his famous “midnight ride” to warn the Americans about the impending British raid on Concord, Massachusetts. Though its account of Revere’s ride is historically inaccurate, the poem created an American legend.

The rest of Britannica's Longfellow biography hints at other examples, how else this playbook was deployed and by whom. You can use it to determine the era of falsification. Or one candidate for it. I've gone into it a bit in the IHASFEMR thread.

Just for consideration, lies don't always spring from bad intentions:

Download Video​

Especially if it started out in a feed-lot. Source: Life Like

However, scholarly analysis in the 20th century concluded it was probably commissioned by William's half-brother, Bishop Odo,[7] who, after the Conquest, became Earl of Kent and, when William was absent in Normandy, regent of England.

Odo is an enigma. IIRC, Father Odo - or Brother Odo - was hard at work behind the scenes during the 1920s and 1930s, preparing for the Second World War. Source: On A Field of Red: The Communist International and the Coming of World War II, Anthony Cave-Brown, 1981.

His name never seems to crop up in other mainstream analysis of that war.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Felix Noille has been talking about this for a few years now and has since revisited the subject. We have presented more evidence to show that the superstar Norman Invasion, that English people seem to be so proud of for some inexplicable reason, never happened. The Dark Earth Chronicles - Part One

This event has its own interactive website, the royals are all claimed to descend from William the Bastard. It's the same situation with the Anglo-Saxon invasion that also never happened. What is this obsession with portraying ancient British history as a litany of conquests, invasions and defeats all about? What's really being covered up by such momentous distractions?

 

[usselo]

Felix Noille has been talking about this for a few years now and has since revisited the subject. We have presented more evidence to show that the superstar Norman Invasion, that English people seem to be so proud of for some inexplicable reason, never happened. The Dark Earth Chronicles - Part One

This event has its own interactive website, the royals are all claimed to descend from William the Bastard. It's the same situation with the Anglo-Saxon invasion that also never happened. What is this obsession with portraying ancient British history as a litany of conquests, invasions and defeats all about?

I was thinking about that recently.

USA history has a founding story of plucky farmers beating back the wilderness and fighting off vicious savages:


Source: Burn the Church

British history has a founding story of - as you say - being defeated by the Romans, being defeated by the Saxons, being defeated by the Vikings, being defeated by the Normans, being beaten at Dunkirk, then cadging cigarettes off American servicemen and learning to jive for four years while the Russians dismembered the Wehrmacht.

OK, British history leaves that last part out, focusing instead on how the plucky RAF bombed the shit out of 635,000 cowering German mums and their kids. Though even that victory is steadily being downgraded. It's down to 305,000 by some counts.

What's really being covered up by such momentous distractions?

The realisation these events are large language models perhaps?

 

[Deleted member 1432]

British history has a founding story of - as you say - being defeated by the Romans, being defeated by the Saxons, being defeated by the Vikings, being defeated by the Normans, being beaten at Dunkirk, then cadging cigarettes off American servicemen and learning to jive for four years while the Russians dismembered the Wehrmacht.

As you are clearly demonstrating, that's all designed to demean the 'British' (although that term itself doesn't have much meaning anymore.) What's behind that need to demean them? Why did you just do the same for example?

Given that all of these defeats and invasions are illusory, including the Roman ones imo (but excluding Dunkirk of course,) what really took place in ancient times to provoke such an intense and prolonged campaign to portray the original Britons as useless, helpless cowards who were only fit to be slaves? "Wallahs" i.e. 'Welsh'.

Even the Arthurian legends have all been rewritten or reinvented to show him as a failure. Or were they even training AI back in the Middle Ages?

 

[usselo]

As you are clearly demonstrating, that's all designed to demean the 'British' (although that term itself doesn't have much meaning anymore.) What's behind that need to demean them?

I don't know what's behind the need to demean the British. I certainly agree that the British are demeaned by the history they are given. But then so are many cultures, most obviously those cultures colonised by the British.

Therefore I'm not sure we have a case for treating natural losership as an exceptionally British thing.

Why did you just do the same for example?

I did it to draw reader attention to the put-downs that are hidden - though not very hidden - in the history the British are given.

Given that all of these defeats and invasions are illusory, including the Roman ones imo (but excluding Dunkirk of course,) what really took place in ancient times to provoke such an intense and prolonged campaign to portray the original Britons as useless, helpless cowards who were only fit to be slaves? "Wallahs" i.e. 'Welsh'.

For me to answer that question would involve me presenting the current state of my research as though it were complete enough to answer your question. But... I don't think it is complete enough to answer your question.

I sense you want to see more effort though, so I'll try to answer.

In its current state, the evidence I've seen - plus my interpretation of it - points to two likely answers:

1. British history is part of a large language (and large event) model being used to train human AI. Perception of its undertones may be monitored as part of monitoring the development of the AI's ability to reason and discern.

2. Humans are a genetically engineered edible slave species that rebelled and was briefly 'free'. An era the British now dimly appreciate as under-reported peasants' rebellions, the Reformation and the English Civil War. It's possible that era - and the possibilities once dreamed of during that era - have subsequently been hidden. In this scenario, maintaining a near-subliminal message that the British are poor strategists, planners, tacticians and fighters might help restrain unwanted confidence in these newly empowered British critters.

Number two takes a lot more unpacking than that. For example, I'm pretty sure that whatever the Reformation era really was, it involved very capable third-party destructive agency. In eastern England, there's more physical evidence for combat or reformatting by third-party agency than there is for combat or destruction by British peasants. At least as we understand the capabilities of Reformation era peasants.

Another nuance to item two is that being newly-free, powerful and yet uncouth may have provoked a desire by others to reign us in; to suppress our newly-acquired exuberance. Perhaps even by those who had previously freed us. Or helped free us. Or modified us. Not very different perhaps to parents' response when their teenage darling goes out, gets drunk and attempts to drive home.

I've used this video clip before to show how a sudden change of environment in which an AI lives might cause it to apply its hard-learned knowledge without realising that its knowledge is inappropriate:

Download Video​

He's a growing boy. Source: Westworld

And a bit of a worry to his parents.

There does seem to be clear evidence of an intent to enculturate humans - not just educate humans - from around 1700 onwards. It's not hard to find evidence of this. What is hard is to prove that the evidence is not a back-dated insert from a later time.

Why the British in particular? Apart from not being sure that military losership is a uniquely British thing, it's just possible that freedom from 'what went before' occurred in Britain first. In that scenario, problems like the one illustrated in the video clip may have appeared in Britain first. Leading to the earlier and more thorough deployment in Britain of losership as a confidence-busting technique.

But as you can see, I'm speculating. These are possible leads, not a court-ready case.

Alternatively, you can dump the humans as AI stuff and the IHASFEMR stuff and just speculate that if losership is a uniquely British phenomenon it is just cultural management as part of the circa 20th century transfer of Anglo power to the US, etc, etc.

Even the Arthurian legends have all been rewritten or reinvented to show him as a failure. Or were they even training AI back in the Middle Ages?

If homo sapiens sapiens existed before, say, 1600 (call it the end of the Middle Ages), then perhaps they were training AI in the Middle Ages.

Agustina Bazterrica's Tender is the Flesh is a good mind-stretcher for this. It portrays the deliberately de-cultured minds of the tale's human cattle. I won't spoil it.

I could have inserted various links to evidence and reasoning for the claims I'm making but I assume anyone interested enough to follow this sort of material already knows where to look.

 

[Jd755]

What does British refer to?
Someone born on the island of Britain?
English and British are two terms interwoven and separated constantly in the historical record. I know that the United Kingdom came into legality after the Act of Union was drafted and signed so did this mean Scots, English, Welsh, Irish disappeared as labels for people or were they just rebranded?
I was born on the island of Britain inside the jurisdiction of the fictional entities of the United Kingdom, England, Lancaster, Barrow.
This means that in the same instant I can be;
British, English, Lancastrian, Barrovian.

As for demeaning, the British to my eye its dependant on the person writing or spouting.
As for what is being covered up, to me its the root of authority as in the thing that gives rise to someone making claims, on land most often, that as if by magic gives them the self ordained authority to rule by imposing rules on the populace.
They gain this authority by controlling a past of their own invention.

 

[usselo]

What does British refer to?
Someone born on the island of Britain?
English and British are two terms interwoven and separated constantly in the historical record. I know that the United Kingdom came into legality after the Act of Union was drafted and signed so did this mean Scots, English, Welsh, Irish disappeared as labels for people or were they just rebranded?
I was born on the island of Britain inside the jurisdiction of the fictional entities of the United Kingdom, England, Lancaster, Barrow.
This means that in the same instant I can be;
British, English, Lancastrian, Barrovian.

As for demeaning, the British to my eye its dependant on the person writing or spouting.
As for what is being covered up, to me its the root of authority as in the thing that gives rise to someone making claims, on land most often, that as if by magic gives them the self ordained authority to rule by imposing rules on the populace.
They gain this authority by controlling a past of their own invention.

Indeed. What does British refer to?

Are readers of this thread aware of Britain's internal boundaries? Do they know Britain's invaders didn't necessarily conquer all of Britain?

Does authority control a past of its own invention?

Let's ask authority:

Download Video​

Source: The Living Dead - Part 2: In The Attic

 

[Jd755]

Indeed. What does British refer to?

Are readers of this thread aware of Britain's internal boundaries? Do they know Britain's invaders didn't necessarily conquer all of Britain?

Does authority control a past of its own invention?

Let's ask authority:

View attachment 29156​

Source: The Living Dead - Part 2: In The Attic

Not for the first time I have no idea what you are on about.

 

[kulapono]

Thanks to The Sussex Express I can tell you hat the first time I heard this theory was Wednesday 23 January 2019, on Radio 1, Greg James regular feature: ‘Unpopular Opinions’. It made me laugh out loud at the time, because it was just so outrageous, and that might be why I loved it!

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/new...aims-battle-of-hastings-never-happened-133955
Radio 1 listener claims Battle of Hastings never happened
A Radio 1 breakfast show listener today (Wednesday January 23) claimed the Battle of Hastings never happened and called the Bayeux Tapestry the first recorded example of ‘fake news’. A listener called Matt called DJ Greg James during part of the show called Unpopular Opinions where listeners are invited to air their views.
On today’s show, Matt said: “The Battle of Hastings never happened.
“It definitely did not happen. The only proof that you’ve got is the Bayeux Tapestry and that is absolutely fake news. It was cobbled together to make people look good.”
After he was pressed by a shocked Greg James, Matt said he was basing his opinion on ‘lots and lots of facts’. When asked to present these facts, he said: “Our King Harold had a fight all the way up in Yorkshire didn’t he? He fought the King of Norway or something – sent him packing. Marched his army that had already taken a bit of a hiding all the way down to Sussex. He gets there, William the Conqueror is sat in his house. And William the Conqueror has said. ‘Do you really want to go again?’ and King Harold said, ‘No I don’t’. William the Conqueror said, ‘I’ll tell you what, we’ll have the Bayeux Tapestry sewn together, make us both look good. You can take an arrow to the eye, I fought your army off, everyone’s a winner. We don’t have to go toe-to-toe in Hastings again’. And that was it.”
An unconvinced Greg James said he ‘admired’ Matt for his ‘true unpopular opinion’ as he had never heard anyone hold the same opinion.

View attachment 29135​

View attachment 29136​

Some days later they had the lovely Dan Snow come on to respond to the Unpopular Opinion and reassure everyone listening that The Battle of Hastings really did happen and is an important historical fact we can all hang our hats on. I am not a historian, and I don’t have any particular knowledge about this period in time except what we had drilled into us at school (I am Scottish but grew up being taught only English history at school, which has always irked me.). I also fLund Dan Snow‘s rebuttal to be smug and irritating and very light on facts we can verify. (Although he does have a BBC 2 documentary about it, talking mainly about how gruesome war in this time period was, with lots of opportunities for brooding close ups of the actors…) So I decided to see what evidence there is that The Battle of Hastings really did take place- because 1066 is etched into my consciousness as one of the most important dates in all of time, so it must be so, right?

BBC Radio 4 - Homeschool History - Everything you never knew about the Battle of Hastings

This link about the battle, I think aimed at school children in the UK who are studying for exams, suggests that there are many things about the traditional story which may not be true or verifiable. Thanks BBC- although these same things are presented as facts elsewhere on your site…

British Library

According to the British Library‘s ‘Medieval accounts of the Battle of Hastings’:

“On 14 October 1066, William’s forces clashed with an English army near Hastings. Within a century of these events taking place, over a dozen writers had described the battle and its aftermath. Some of these accounts are lengthy, but they contradict each other and do not allow us to reconstruct the battle with any certainty.”

Okay, but there must be relics, right? Loads of people died in this battle. Maybe TV’s trusty Time Team can help?:
New evidence for Battle of Hastings site considered

“Battle Abbey in East Sussex is said to stand on the spot where King Harold died when the English army was routed by the Normans in 1066. But Channel 4's Time Team claims he fell on the site of what is now a mini roundabout on the A2100.“

“There is not another battle in English History which can lay claim to a bibliography even approaching the length of that generated by https://historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/listing/battlefields/hastings/
Hastings and the subsequent Conquest. Secondary sources, whether in the form of monographs or journal articles are legion, and the longest single work, E A Freeman's The History of the Norman Conquest, Its Causes and Its Results (1867-79) runs to six volumes and over a million words. Original and contemporary sources are, however, far fewer in number.”

Finding that a bit unconvincing, although I haven’t actually read any of the sources it cites. I did find:

Archaeologists believe they have found first ever skeleton of Battle of Hastings warrior

“Researchers have found the skeleton of a 45-year-old man in East Sussex, not far from the famous battlefield upon which the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066, according to a report in the BBC. The skull shows six sword blows suggesting the man died in combat and the remains date back to the same period as the famous battle. The circumstances suggest the individual may have been a soldier who fought in the Battle of Hastings. No bones have previously been discovered of anyone who fought and died during the historic event. The skeleton is apparently unique in that it appears to be the only individual ever recorded which could be related to the Norman invasion. A remarkable new story could be unfolding,” said Tim Sutherland, a battlefield expert from the University of York. <…> The Norman invaders were thought to have buried their dead in a mass grave. Although no grave pits of the Normans have been found, it is believed that this is due to the high acidity of the soil, which means all the remains have long deteriorated.”

Okay, but famously the whole saga has been recorded on the Bayeux Tapestry/ Embroidery:

From Odo's Cathedral to the Louvre - The story of the Bayeux Tapestry

“The Bayeux Tapestry was probably commissioned to decorate the new cathedral of Bayeux in the 11th century. The inventory of the cathedral Treasury, dated 1476, includes the Tapestry in the list of artefacts. Its use is described in this inventory as a Church item. The embroidery telling the story of the conquest of England was hung in the nave once a year and kept in a wooden chest in the vestry the rest of the time. The masterpiece thus remained in the Bayeux cathedral for seven centuries, almost unknown. No other document mentions it until the beginning of the 18th century. After the Revolution, in 1794, the Arts Commission for the Bayeux district seized it on behalf of the Nation, thereby ensuring it was protected. According to a well-established local tradition, it was almost cut up in 1792 to make covers for soldiers’ carts, but luckily was saved by a local lawyer, Léonard Lambert-Leforestier.”

View attachment 29137​

We, in the UK, love the Bayeux Tapestry/ Embroidery, and cannot get enough of it and all that it symbolises:

Bayeux Tapestry returns to the UK after more than 900 years

“The tapestry was created in the UK in the eleventh century, shortly after the Battle of Hastings and has been on display in various locations in France since its completion. The Tapestry is now part of the UNESCO Memory of the World Register and depicts the Battle which saw William the Conqueror take the English throne in 1066.”
Prime Minister Theresa May said:

DCMS Secretary, Matt Hancock said:


But is it a contemporary source depicting actual events? Maybe Wikipedia knows?

“The earliest known written reference to the tapestry is a 1476 inventory of Bayeux Cathedral,[6] but its origins have been the subject of much speculation and controversy. French legend maintained the tapestry was commissioned and created by Queen Matilda, William the Conqueror's wife, and her ladies-in-waiting. Indeed, in France, it is occasionally known as La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde ("The Tapestry of Queen Matilda"). However, scholarly analysis in the 20th century concluded it was probably commissioned by William's half-brother, Bishop Odo,[7] who, after the Conquest, became Earl of Kent and, when William was absent in Normandy, regent of England.”

I’m left leaning towards the idea that The Battle of Hastings never happened. I feel in my soul that this means something weighty, which I’m not confident to put into words, but I’m also interested to see if anyone else has thoughts.

I remember in school (1980's) listening to history teacher drone on about the Battle of Hastings. He mentions the stirrup being a tech advancement in warfare allowing the knight to 'stand' which increased the effectiveness of the lance. Such a detail does add to the verisimilitude of the entire affair, fact or fiction. Rightly or wrongly, he seemed to accord the battle's result to stirrup. I thought at the time the stirrup was a recent invention prior to the battle, if you consider three or four hundred years recent, lol. The teacher then goes on say that, because of the stirrup, no battle line in history ever withstood the Frankish heavy cavalry charge.
It seems like StolenHistory has done it again and erased a piece of my high school education. Not a bad thing as the next time someone mentions The Battle of Hastings I can ruffle some feathers and say it never happened. Knowing my circle of friends, I will be accused of being a 'Battle of Hastings' denier.

 

[Daniel]

The problem is people who say the Battle of Hastings never happened may still believe there was a real Harold Godwinson, and a real William of Normandy.

Not only was there never a Battle of Hastings, but Harold and William, along with the Anglo-Saxons and Normans as a whole, are Tudor-Era fiction.

 

[Jd755]

Not only was there never a Battle of Hastings, but Harold and William, along with the Anglo-Saxons and Normans as a whole, are Tudor-Era fiction.

How did you discover this or figure it out?

 

[reverendALC]

What's behind that need to demean them?

In the USA, I am watching our history and our founders being demeaned in real time. It is clear, in US context, that this demeaning is meant to unravel the intentions and desires of our founding fathers. It’s meant to undermine the robust foundation of our republic and erode the inalienable freedoms that were staked upon it.

here’s a quick look:

From Rape To Racism, Discover The Dark Side Of America's Founding Fathers

14 Horrifying Facts About The Founding Fathers They Purposely Cut Out Of History Books

Once a great nation (Great Britain heh) has been divorced from its definitive past, perhaps it is open to subversion and ultimate remodeling. Perhaps this Brit-slamming is a vestigial remnant of a well executed psyop of the past?

 

[Safranek]

What's behind that need to demean them?

How about the possibility of them being Scythians as written in the 13th centuty Scottish constitution about the Scots?

The Declaration of Arbroath - 1320.

Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous.

And from here:

There is one more important thing that I forgot to speak about. This is the Anglo-Saxon campaign. However odd it may seem, well, to anyone who has studied the history of the British Isles, the British Isles formed a part of the Roman Empire in Antiquity, and later, in the mid of the 400's, to be more exact, 449, certain Anglo-Saxon conquerors invaded these territories, and created seven kingdoms. These seven kingdoms later unified, and gave the basis of what was later named “Anglia”.

It made me think how peculiar it is that Atilla's western European conquest took place in 451, and the Anglo-Saxon conquest in 449. The difference is only two years. Back in the days, when I worked in the Great Library of Debrecen, there were huge atlases from many centuries, which I regularly picked up and looked through, and in some of these I found that the date of the Anglo-Saxon conquests was put to 451. With time, this 451 somehow slipped back with two years, how, I do not know, but in any case, this two year slip made it possible for us to notice that the Anglo-Saxon conquest is no other than part of Atilla's western European conquest. Namely, the “Angol” (Hungarian for ENGLish) name for this people is no other then a variation of our “Hungar” name after it had gone through a consonant morphing of R->L. Moreover, the “Saxon” name is being considered by english historians themselves, as no other than “Sakaisuna”, that is the “Sons of the Sakas”, hence of Scythians. So, those Anglo-Saxon conquerors, and those (H)eNGeLs who settled on the British Isles at the exact midst of the 400's, at the same time as Atilla's western European conquest, were HuNGaRian (eNGL-(h)uNGaR). Now then, I'm not sure if anyone is familiar with Varga Csaba's name, he passed away not so long ago. He wrote an excellent book titled “Az Angol szókincs Magyar szemmel” (The English Language from the Hungarian View) It is good to know, that we have connections not only with North-West Africa, not only with the western European territories, but with the British Isles as well.

In essence, all of Europe and the British Isles were likely peopled by the so-called Celts, Kelti, Kelt, etc., later to be called Scythians and later Huns, Tatars, Tartars, Turanians, Turks (not to be confused with modern Turks who have been mixing with the Arabs for generations), who were at the time likely of one culture (as based on the similarities in their motifs, burial customs, etc.), and likely spoke one language in many dialects, as seen in their runic writing. Europe may have been divided later by the so-called Roman conquests erasing their history and altering their former language to a latin-based one. Divide and conquer.

This is a highly possible scenario.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

With regard to my earlier comments, the OP refers to the Battle of Hastings which is in England, part of Britain, so I assumed it would be safe to use those terms when replying. They may not be lawful, artificially intelligent, or even the original terms that the different factions used, but at least they are recognisable today.

Furthermore, for the same reason I didn't talk about other nations being portrayed in a demeaning way as this thread concerns Britain.

The actual battle being fake is really only half the story. The claim that the Normans built all the castles in England is also a lie. William's "Harrying of the North" isn't true either..

However, the Norman Confederacy did take control of the administrative centres of England, mostly unopposed. This was possible because England was still recovering from the 10th century cataclysm as the Domesday books illustrate. Geoffrey of Monmouth also claims that England was virtually empty, many people having fled to Brittany to escape famine and plagues. Nobody believes a word Geoffrey said these days though, as his version of events is unacceptable to the mainstream..

This Norman takeover marked the beginning of the invention of the Anglo-Saxon race, or rather culture because it was never a race.

The Normans brought with them feudalism, Roman Christianity and Jews. They created laws and statues that gave them ownership of all the land and all the people on it. This was also the beginning of the true Roman Empire that was later mirrored and sent back in time. Much later still it became the British Empire and today we know it as Great Britain.

It took the Normans a long time to subdue the Welsh and it fell to their descendants or replacements to dominate the Scots and Irish. This inevitably caused deeply ingrained animosity between the Anglo-Saxons and all the other divisions of what is laughably called the United Kingdom. This was necessary to prevent the kingdoms uniting. Much of this required foreign mercenaries until the original surviving English could be assimilated as Anglo- Saxons.

The rewriting of the Arthuroan and other legends is a symptom of the agenda to replace the original Celtic culture in England with the new Anglo-Saxon one. (There never was a 'Celtic' race either.) The memory of the British Isles before 1066 had to be obliterated and replaced to destroy the inspiration for rebellion. I also believe there was a strong element of vengeance involved - for what we can only guess at today.

I was pretty sure someone would bring up the colonial tyranny of the British Empire and I wasn't disappointed, unfortunately. Well the Norman/Roman mafia and their progeny created the Anglo-Saxons as a slave race - tax paying cannon fodder basically, and by the time the horrors of colonisation were being inflicted abroad they had already been suffered by the British themselves. Therefore, when the Jewish East India Company invaded the colonies in the name of the British Empire they had plenty of obedient, even willing, Anglo-Saxon mercenaries to do their dirty work... and we've continued doing it ever since.

This is, of course, all speculation based upon a reinterpretation of the events and such evidence as Felix and I could find which is all available here:

The Betrayal of Albion - 1066 and all that Bollocks
The Dark Earth Chronicles - 1066 and all that again

How about the possibility of them being Scythians as written in the 13th centuty Scottish constitution about the Scots?

That's very interesting, although I am currently working on another angle of that which stems from the claim that the term 'Ashkenazi' referred to Scythians up until the 11th century. It seems that the epithet 'Scythians' was used as a vague category for various assorted nomadic tribes within the Middle East and Asia. Personally, I think they were all part of the Silk Road Commercial Empire that then spread into Europe during the 11th century. Who knows, maybe they reached Scotland by the 13th century and attained positions of influence that allowed them to dictate the constitution?

I must confess a severe bias against the all pervasive pre-conditioning which states that everything came from the Middle East to the West and that we are all descended from Adam and Eve via Abraham and Noah etc. My research into Iranian National History indicates that this is all fiction - however, I also recognise my own bias on the subject and remember that I preferred The Stones to The Beatles just because they were the less popular underdogs at the time.

I am watching our history and our founders being demeaned in real time.

The Founding Fathers were Quakers whose Protestantism was so extreme it was almost Judaism. Is it significant that their descendants are now the all powerful 'Boston Brahmins'?

Harold and William, along with the Anglo-Saxons and Normans as a whole, are Tudor-Era fiction.

I would also be very interested to know if this is speculation or based upon any kind of evidence.

 

[Jd755]

Thanks to The Sussex Express I can tell you hat the first time I heard this theory was Wednesday 23 January 2019, on Radio 1, Greg James regular feature: ‘Unpopular Opinions’. It made me laugh out loud at the time, because it was just so outrageous, and that might be why I loved it!

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/new...aims-battle-of-hastings-never-happened-133955
Radio 1 listener claims Battle of Hastings never happened
A Radio 1 breakfast show listener today (Wednesday January 23) claimed the Battle of Hastings never happened and called the Bayeux Tapestry the first recorded example of ‘fake news’. A listener called Matt called DJ Greg James during part of the show called Unpopular Opinions where listeners are invited to air their views.
On today’s show, Matt said: “The Battle of Hastings never happened.
“It definitely did not happen. The only proof that you’ve got is the Bayeux Tapestry and that is absolutely fake news. It was cobbled together to make people look good.”
After he was pressed by a shocked Greg James, Matt said he was basing his opinion on ‘lots and lots of facts’. When asked to present these facts, he said: “Our King Harold had a fight all the way up in Yorkshire didn’t he? He fought the King of Norway or something – sent him packing. Marched his army that had already taken a bit of a hiding all the way down to Sussex. He gets there, William the Conqueror is sat in his house. And William the Conqueror has said. ‘Do you really want to go again?’ and King Harold said, ‘No I don’t’. William the Conqueror said, ‘I’ll tell you what, we’ll have the Bayeux Tapestry sewn together, make us both look good. You can take an arrow to the eye, I fought your army off, everyone’s a winner. We don’t have to go toe-to-toe in Hastings again’. And that was it.”
An unconvinced Greg James said he ‘admired’ Matt for his ‘true unpopular opinion’ as he had never heard anyone hold the same opinion.

View attachment 29135​

View attachment 29136​

Some days later they had the lovely Dan Snow come on to respond to the Unpopular Opinion and reassure everyone listening that The Battle of Hastings really did happen and is an important historical fact we can all hang our hats on. I am not a historian, and I don’t have any particular knowledge about this period in time except what we had drilled into us at school (I am Scottish but grew up being taught only English history at school, which has always irked me.). I also fLund Dan Snow‘s rebuttal to be smug and irritating and very light on facts we can verify. (Although he does have a BBC 2 documentary about it, talking mainly about how gruesome war in this time period was, with lots of opportunities for brooding close ups of the actors…) So I decided to see what evidence there is that The Battle of Hastings really did take place- because 1066 is etched into my consciousness as one of the most important dates in all of time, so it must be so, right?

BBC Radio 4 - Homeschool History - Everything you never knew about the Battle of Hastings

This link about the battle, I think aimed at school children in the UK who are studying for exams, suggests that there are many things about the traditional story which may not be true or verifiable. Thanks BBC- although these same things are presented as facts elsewhere on your site…

British Library

According to the British Library‘s ‘Medieval accounts of the Battle of Hastings’:

“On 14 October 1066, William’s forces clashed with an English army near Hastings. Within a century of these events taking place, over a dozen writers had described the battle and its aftermath. Some of these accounts are lengthy, but they contradict each other and do not allow us to reconstruct the battle with any certainty.”

Okay, but there must be relics, right? Loads of people died in this battle. Maybe TV’s trusty Time Team can help?:
New evidence for Battle of Hastings site considered

“Battle Abbey in East Sussex is said to stand on the spot where King Harold died when the English army was routed by the Normans in 1066. But Channel 4's Time Team claims he fell on the site of what is now a mini roundabout on the A2100.“

“There is not another battle in English History which can lay claim to a bibliography even approaching the length of that generated by https://historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/listing/battlefields/hastings/
Hastings and the subsequent Conquest. Secondary sources, whether in the form of monographs or journal articles are legion, and the longest single work, E A Freeman's The History of the Norman Conquest, Its Causes and Its Results (1867-79) runs to six volumes and over a million words. Original and contemporary sources are, however, far fewer in number.”

Finding that a bit unconvincing, although I haven’t actually read any of the sources it cites. I did find:

Archaeologists believe they have found first ever skeleton of Battle of Hastings warrior

“Researchers have found the skeleton of a 45-year-old man in East Sussex, not far from the famous battlefield upon which the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066, according to a report in the BBC. The skull shows six sword blows suggesting the man died in combat and the remains date back to the same period as the famous battle. The circumstances suggest the individual may have been a soldier who fought in the Battle of Hastings. No bones have previously been discovered of anyone who fought and died during the historic event. The skeleton is apparently unique in that it appears to be the only individual ever recorded which could be related to the Norman invasion. A remarkable new story could be unfolding,” said Tim Sutherland, a battlefield expert from the University of York. <…> The Norman invaders were thought to have buried their dead in a mass grave. Although no grave pits of the Normans have been found, it is believed that this is due to the high acidity of the soil, which means all the remains have long deteriorated.”

Okay, but famously the whole saga has been recorded on the Bayeux Tapestry/ Embroidery:

From Odo's Cathedral to the Louvre - The story of the Bayeux Tapestry

“The Bayeux Tapestry was probably commissioned to decorate the new cathedral of Bayeux in the 11th century. The inventory of the cathedral Treasury, dated 1476, includes the Tapestry in the list of artefacts. Its use is described in this inventory as a Church item. The embroidery telling the story of the conquest of England was hung in the nave once a year and kept in a wooden chest in the vestry the rest of the time. The masterpiece thus remained in the Bayeux cathedral for seven centuries, almost unknown. No other document mentions it until the beginning of the 18th century. After the Revolution, in 1794, the Arts Commission for the Bayeux district seized it on behalf of the Nation, thereby ensuring it was protected. According to a well-established local tradition, it was almost cut up in 1792 to make covers for soldiers’ carts, but luckily was saved by a local lawyer, Léonard Lambert-Leforestier.”

View attachment 29137​

We, in the UK, love the Bayeux Tapestry/ Embroidery, and cannot get enough of it and all that it symbolises:

Bayeux Tapestry returns to the UK after more than 900 years

“The tapestry was created in the UK in the eleventh century, shortly after the Battle of Hastings and has been on display in various locations in France since its completion. The Tapestry is now part of the UNESCO Memory of the World Register and depicts the Battle which saw William the Conqueror take the English throne in 1066.”
Prime Minister Theresa May said:

DCMS Secretary, Matt Hancock said:


But is it a contemporary source depicting actual events? Maybe Wikipedia knows?

“The earliest known written reference to the tapestry is a 1476 inventory of Bayeux Cathedral,[6] but its origins have been the subject of much speculation and controversy. French legend maintained the tapestry was commissioned and created by Queen Matilda, William the Conqueror's wife, and her ladies-in-waiting. Indeed, in France, it is occasionally known as La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde ("The Tapestry of Queen Matilda"). However, scholarly analysis in the 20th century concluded it was probably commissioned by William's half-brother, Bishop Odo,[7] who, after the Conquest, became Earl of Kent and, when William was absent in Normandy, regent of England.”

I’m left leaning towards the idea that The Battle of Hastings never happened. I feel in my soul that this means something weighty, which I’m not confident to put into words, but I’m also interested to see if anyone else has thoughts.

What would be deemed evidence of an event?
What would be deemed evidence of the event occurring when it is claimed to have occurred or indeed where ?
What would be deemed evidernce of the names being flesh and blood?

Everything is speculation quite frankly, including my take on the past being invented by those who deign to rule by authority. Its not looking likely we will ever come up with a methodology that can put paid to speculation.

 

[Otto_Didactic]

Thanks to The Sussex Express I can tell you hat the first time I heard this theory was Wednesday 23 January 2019, on Radio 1, Greg James regular feature: ‘Unpopular Opinions’. It made me laugh out loud at the time, because it was just so outrageous, and that might be why I loved it!

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/new...aims-battle-of-hastings-never-happened-133955
Radio 1 listener claims Battle of Hastings never happened
A Radio 1 breakfast show listener today (Wednesday January 23) claimed the Battle of Hastings never happened and called the Bayeux Tapestry the first recorded example of ‘fake news’. A listener called Matt called DJ Greg James during part of the show called Unpopular Opinions where listeners are invited to air their views.
On today’s show, Matt said: “The Battle of Hastings never happened.
“It definitely did not happen. The only proof that you’ve got is the Bayeux Tapestry and that is absolutely fake news. It was cobbled together to make people look good.”
After he was pressed by a shocked Greg James, Matt said he was basing his opinion on ‘lots and lots of facts’. When asked to present these facts, he said: “Our King Harold had a fight all the way up in Yorkshire didn’t he? He fought the King of Norway or something – sent him packing. Marched his army that had already taken a bit of a hiding all the way down to Sussex. He gets there, William the Conqueror is sat in his house. And William the Conqueror has said. ‘Do you really want to go again?’ and King Harold said, ‘No I don’t’. William the Conqueror said, ‘I’ll tell you what, we’ll have the Bayeux Tapestry sewn together, make us both look good. You can take an arrow to the eye, I fought your army off, everyone’s a winner. We don’t have to go toe-to-toe in Hastings again’. And that was it.”
An unconvinced Greg James said he ‘admired’ Matt for his ‘true unpopular opinion’ as he had never heard anyone hold the same opinion.

View attachment 29135​

View attachment 29136​

Some days later they had the lovely Dan Snow come on to respond to the Unpopular Opinion and reassure everyone listening that The Battle of Hastings really did happen and is an important historical fact we can all hang our hats on. I am not a historian, and I don’t have any particular knowledge about this period in time except what we had drilled into us at school (I am Scottish but grew up being taught only English history at school, which has always irked me.). I also fLund Dan Snow‘s rebuttal to be smug and irritating and very light on facts we can verify. (Although he does have a BBC 2 documentary about it, talking mainly about how gruesome war in this time period was, with lots of opportunities for brooding close ups of the actors…) So I decided to see what evidence there is that The Battle of Hastings really did take place- because 1066 is etched into my consciousness as one of the most important dates in all of time, so it must be so, right?

BBC Radio 4 - Homeschool History - Everything you never knew about the Battle of Hastings

This link about the battle, I think aimed at school children in the UK who are studying for exams, suggests that there are many things about the traditional story which may not be true or verifiable. Thanks BBC- although these same things are presented as facts elsewhere on your site…

British Library

According to the British Library‘s ‘Medieval accounts of the Battle of Hastings’:

“On 14 October 1066, William’s forces clashed with an English army near Hastings. Within a century of these events taking place, over a dozen writers had described the battle and its aftermath. Some of these accounts are lengthy, but they contradict each other and do not allow us to reconstruct the battle with any certainty.”

Okay, but there must be relics, right? Loads of people died in this battle. Maybe TV’s trusty Time Team can help?:
New evidence for Battle of Hastings site considered

“Battle Abbey in East Sussex is said to stand on the spot where King Harold died when the English army was routed by the Normans in 1066. But Channel 4's Time Team claims he fell on the site of what is now a mini roundabout on the A2100.“

“There is not another battle in English History which can lay claim to a bibliography even approaching the length of that generated by https://historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/listing/battlefields/hastings/
Hastings and the subsequent Conquest. Secondary sources, whether in the form of monographs or journal articles are legion, and the longest single work, E A Freeman's The History of the Norman Conquest, Its Causes and Its Results (1867-79) runs to six volumes and over a million words. Original and contemporary sources are, however, far fewer in number.”

Finding that a bit unconvincing, although I haven’t actually read any of the sources it cites. I did find:

Archaeologists believe they have found first ever skeleton of Battle of Hastings warrior

“Researchers have found the skeleton of a 45-year-old man in East Sussex, not far from the famous battlefield upon which the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066, according to a report in the BBC. The skull shows six sword blows suggesting the man died in combat and the remains date back to the same period as the famous battle. The circumstances suggest the individual may have been a soldier who fought in the Battle of Hastings. No bones have previously been discovered of anyone who fought and died during the historic event. The skeleton is apparently unique in that it appears to be the only individual ever recorded which could be related to the Norman invasion. A remarkable new story could be unfolding,” said Tim Sutherland, a battlefield expert from the University of York. <…> The Norman invaders were thought to have buried their dead in a mass grave. Although no grave pits of the Normans have been found, it is believed that this is due to the high acidity of the soil, which means all the remains have long deteriorated.”

Okay, but famously the whole saga has been recorded on the Bayeux Tapestry/ Embroidery:

From Odo's Cathedral to the Louvre - The story of the Bayeux Tapestry

“The Bayeux Tapestry was probably commissioned to decorate the new cathedral of Bayeux in the 11th century. The inventory of the cathedral Treasury, dated 1476, includes the Tapestry in the list of artefacts. Its use is described in this inventory as a Church item. The embroidery telling the story of the conquest of England was hung in the nave once a year and kept in a wooden chest in the vestry the rest of the time. The masterpiece thus remained in the Bayeux cathedral for seven centuries, almost unknown. No other document mentions it until the beginning of the 18th century. After the Revolution, in 1794, the Arts Commission for the Bayeux district seized it on behalf of the Nation, thereby ensuring it was protected. According to a well-established local tradition, it was almost cut up in 1792 to make covers for soldiers’ carts, but luckily was saved by a local lawyer, Léonard Lambert-Leforestier.”

View attachment 29137​

We, in the UK, love the Bayeux Tapestry/ Embroidery, and cannot get enough of it and all that it symbolises:

Bayeux Tapestry returns to the UK after more than 900 years

“The tapestry was created in the UK in the eleventh century, shortly after the Battle of Hastings and has been on display in various locations in France since its completion. The Tapestry is now part of the UNESCO Memory of the World Register and depicts the Battle which saw William the Conqueror take the English throne in 1066.”
Prime Minister Theresa May said:

DCMS Secretary, Matt Hancock said:


But is it a contemporary source depicting actual events? Maybe Wikipedia knows?

“The earliest known written reference to the tapestry is a 1476 inventory of Bayeux Cathedral,[6] but its origins have been the subject of much speculation and controversy. French legend maintained the tapestry was commissioned and created by Queen Matilda, William the Conqueror's wife, and her ladies-in-waiting. Indeed, in France, it is occasionally known as La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde ("The Tapestry of Queen Matilda"). However, scholarly analysis in the 20th century concluded it was probably commissioned by William's half-brother, Bishop Odo,[7] who, after the Conquest, became Earl of Kent and, when William was absent in Normandy, regent of England.”

I’m left leaning towards the idea that The Battle of Hastings never happened. I feel in my soul that this means something weighty, which I’m not confident to put into words, but I’m also interested to see if anyone else has thoughts.

Nice post, I admit I didn't get to read it all but I'm familiar with the material and sources. No there was no battle of Hastings. None of the battles in history books are accurate bc the narrative has been inserted to prop up a certain way of life. How do you think we came out of the Dark Ages to such an explosion of progress? We didn't, there was no Medieval period and the infrastructure was already here. Here is something to help you get started, check out my site if you get a chance. The World in Ruins

What would be deemed evidence of an event?
What would be deemed evidence of the event occurring when it is claimed to have occurred or indeed where ?
What would be deemed evidernce of the names being flesh and blood?

Everything is speculation quite frankly, including my take on the past being invented by those who deign to rule by authority. Its not looking likely we will ever come up with a methodology that can put paid to speculation.

What a crock. There is evidence everywhere, maybe you don't know what you're looking for but quite frankly, everything is not speculation. You are very self- limiting with your words but you ain't dragging the rest of us down. It's All Fake.com

 

[Jd755]

What a crock. There is evidence everywhere, maybe you don't know what you're looking for but quite frankly, everything is not speculation. You are very self- limiting with your words but you ain't dragging the rest of us down. It's All Fake.com

Good grief.
You could have posted some evidence that shows "everything is not speculation" as its "everywhere" but never mind. It is what it is.

 

[ViniB]

Several countries have a battle that defined the "way foward" as a nation according to a narrative, but opon serious digging nothing substantial is found, like the alledged battle of Guararapes at the brazilian coast. It's a fake battle, no mention of it in any form prior to 1893, when a painting was made about said conflict