Why is the Bayeux Tapestry so controversial?

King Edward the Confessor died in January 1066 without leaving a widely recognised heir, and Harold Godwinson, the Earl of Wessex, immediately claimed the throne with the support of the English nobility and the Church in London.

By contrast, Duke William of Normandy, who had family ties to Edward and claimed that the king had previously promised him the crown, viewed Harold’s coronation as a betrayal of a sacred oath. 

According to Norman accounts, Harold had visited William in Normandy some years earlier and had sworn a serious oath to support William’s right to the throne.

The English sources do not mention this oath and historians still debate the accuracy of the Norman version.

Regardless, William used this oath as justification for invasion and prepared his forces with careful planning.

He built ships, gathered Norman and Breton nobles, and obtained the Pope’s blessing, which framed his campaign as approved by the Church. 

After William sailed across the Channel in late September 1066 and landed at Pevensey, he moved inland and set up camp near Hastings.

The subsequent Battle of Hastings took place on 14 October 1066 and lasted for most of the day.

The English forces, who had already marched south after they had defeated a Norwegian invasion at Stamford Bridge, fought on foot behind a shield wall.

William’s troops, which included cavalry, archers and infantry, eventually broke through after they pretended to retreat and then surrounded the exhausted English.

Harold was killed on the battlefield, reportedly by an arrow to the eye, although some contemporary accounts describe him being cut down by Norman knights.

William then advanced on London, encountering resistance at Southwark before taking a longer route across the Thames and securing the city after key nobles had submitted to his authority. 

Most historians agree that the tapestry was made in the 1070s and was likely created within a decade of the conquest.

Some suggest a date as early as 1070–1072, especially if it had been intended to coincide with William’s securing of power or to celebrate the consecration of Bayeux Cathedral in 1077.

Bishop Odo of Bayeux, William’s half-brother and one of the most powerful men in England after 1066, has often been identified as its main sponsor.

Odo had been present at the Battle of Hastings, had paid for major church building in Normandy, and had access to the wealth and influence required to commission such a work. 

Construction of Bayeux Cathedral, where the tapestry was likely displayed, was consecrated in 1077, though parts of the building continued to be completed in the following years.

As a result, it is possible that the tapestry formed part of the cathedral’s interior decoration and may have been used to support William’s claim because it presented a visual account that favoured the Norman perspective.

Its production coincided with other efforts by the Normans to assert control through legal reform and castle construction, which accompanied the replacement of English elites with Norman landholders. 

The surviving tapestry, which measures approximately 70 metres in length and just over 50 centimetres in height, consists of seventy-five distinct scenes separated by decorative borders.

The exact number varies slightly depending on how scenes are divided, but most scholars accept this count.

Each of those borders generally contains animals, mythological figures, and visual commentary, but the central strip largely focuses on the main story, which largely unfolds through a sequence of embroidered images and Latin captions. 

The tapestry was made from linen and embroidered with dyed wool thread in shades of blue, red, yellow and green.

Artisans used stem stitch for outlines and laid-and-couched work for filling larger areas, techniques which are broadly typical of Anglo-Saxon embroidery traditions.

The Latin inscriptions provide brief but generally essential context to the scenes and identify major figures, such as Harold, William, and Edward.

The wording is relatively simple and was likely intended to be understood by clergy or other educated people.

As a result, many viewers are able to follow the sequence of events despite the absence of longer written explanations.

The tapestry survived largely intact, but a section from the final portion had been lost.

The existing scenes end with the English retreat from the battlefield, just after Harold’s death.

Some scholars had speculated that the missing portion may have depicted William’s coronation or the suppression of further resistance, both of which would likely have completed the narrative and affirmed his authority.

A few researchers had examined medieval inventories or early descriptions to suggest what may have been included in the missing section. 

Several scenes still suffer from minor damage or fading, though the work had survived centuries of war and revolution that often left the tapestry neglected.

During the French Revolution, it was almost destroyed when used as a wagon covering, according to later accounts, but this is difficult to verify with certainty.

Local officials intervened to protect it. Later, efforts to preserve it in the 19th and 20th centuries involved re-lining and cleaning before the tapestry was displayed in a controlled environment.

Today, it is generally kept in the Bayeux Museum under controlled conditions which aim to protect it from light, humidity, and temperature fluctuations. 

The narrative begins with King Edward dispatching Harold to Normandy. Although the reasons for this mission remain unclear, the tapestry appears to show Harold’s departure, his shipwreck, and his capture by Count Guy of Ponthieu.

After he was handed over to Duke William, Harold participated in a military campaign in Brittany and then swore an oath to William, an act that appears to be central to the story's interpretation of later events. 

Upon returning to England, the tapestry shows Harold as he received Edward’s dying words and then took the crown.

The tapestry appears to portray his coronation with public support and a ceremony led by Archbishop Stigand.

Then, William’s reaction unfolds across multiple scenes: shipbuilding and provisioning that supported the crossing of the Channel are shown, and were often accompanied by a blessing from the Church.

The depictions of Norman ships also help to provide useful information about 11th-century naval architecture and show masts, rigging and boarding strategies.

The invasion and subsequent pillaging of the countryside build tension before the climactic battle. 

The Battle of Hastings occupies multiple frames and largely depicts cavalry charges, shield walls, archery, and intense hand-to-hand combat.

Harold’s death receives particular attention, with two figures possibly representing him: one pierced by an arrow and another struck down by a Norman knight.

Some scholars argue that the arrow-in-the-eye figure may have been a later addition, intended to dramatise Harold’s fall.

The Latin caption, “Here King Harold was killed,” anchors the climax of the story in a moment of visual drama. 

The tapestry constructs a version of history that reinforces William’s justification for war.

For example, the narrative emphasised Harold’s oath and its violation, and this arguably cast the Norman invasion as a rightful response to treachery.

Scenes of religious approval, such as Halley’s Comet and ecclesiastical blessings, tended to further strengthen the portrayal of William’s cause as morally and spiritually valid.

The Latin used in the captions indicates a learned ecclesiastical audience, but the imagery itself may have conveyed the essential meaning to some viewers who were unable to read the text. 

Yet the story largely ends abruptly. With the English routed and Harold slain, there is no clear depiction of William’s coronation, his efforts to establish authority, or the harsh consequences suffered by the English population in the following years.

As a result, the omissions leave a partial account that presents the conquest as justified but largely avoids uncomfortable truths about occupation and suppression that provoked rebellion. 

The tapestry’s authorship is one of the most debated aspects of its history.

Although the content heavily favours Norman claims, many scholars argue that it was embroidered in England, possibly at Canterbury.

The needlework technique, Latin spelling conventions, and stylistic elements align with known Anglo-Saxon embroidery methods, which suggests that English artisans may have produced it under Norman supervision. 

Bishop Odo’s role as patron adds more complication. As William’s half-brother and a key figure in both the invasion and the new regime, Odo would have had clear political motives to commission a work that celebrated Norman legitimacy.

His inclusion in multiple scenes, particularly those showing him as a commander and benefactor, supports the theory that the tapestry also promoted his own status. 

Controversy also arises from ambiguous figures and scenes. One of the most puzzling is a woman named Ælfgyva, who appears suddenly in a scene with a priest.

The accompanying Latin text simply states “Here a cleric and Ælfgyva,” which offers no explanation.

Her appearance, which includes a suggestive gesture and physical contact with the cleric, has led to many theories about whether she was involved in a scandal, part of an alliance, or conveyed a moral lesson.

Some theories link her to political negotiations or forgotten incidents involving Anglo-Norman relations.

Her inclusion, which disrupts the otherwise linear narrative, largely remains unresolved. 

Although the tapestry presents Harold as oath-breaker and usurper, it shows him acting bravely in battle and receiving legitimate support from English nobles.

This dual portrayal complicates the idea of pure propaganda and raises the possibility that the artists may have conveyed a more subtle meaning than expected. 

Importantly, the tapestry largely omits any mention of William’s brutal campaigns after the conquest.

The missing final section continues to encourage debate. If it originally included the coronation at Westminster Abbey, it would have completed the story of religious favour and rightful succession.

Alternatively, it may have shown more of the destruction and repression that followed victory.

Either possibility reveals how the absence of just a few metres of linen can significantly influence our understanding of what the tapestry intended to communicate. 

Despite its age, the Bayeux Tapestry is a political document that was also an artistic success and that generated ongoing debate.

Its many silences and internal contradictions continue to create significant uncertainties that raise important questions about power and about the ways history is told.

The tapestry’s identity as either French or English cultural property has also drawn renewed public attention in recent years.

During the Second World War, Hitler had reportedly expressed interest in transporting it to Berlin for propaganda purposes, although documentary evidence for this is limited.

In 2018, French President Emmanuel Macron proposed lending it to Britain, a gesture that revived public discussions about its symbolic and national importance.