Is there a royal sex scandal hidden in plain sight in the Bayeux tapestry?

Bayeux Tapestry exhibition

0:00This episode is brought to you by Accenture. When your advertising operations fall out of sync, everything else follows. Spotify and Accenture are working together to reinvent the rhythm of ad sales, using automation, analytics, and smarter workflows to simplify campaign delivery and access better data across the business. The result? Less time spent on operations, more time connecting brands with the moments and fandoms that matter most. Learn more at Accenture.com slash Spotify.

0:30When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed Sponsored Jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications, and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. That's Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs. Visible puts unlimited 5G data and hotspot in the palm of your

1:04hand. Powered by Verizon's 5G network with no contract holding you back. And for a limited time, you can get Visible for just $19 a month for 12 months when you use promo code SAVE6. All the features of big wireless service for half the cost. Tap the banner to switch today. Terms apply. Standard rate applies at month 13. See Visible.com for planned features and network management details.

1:30Late night bites with friends? Already hard to beat. That first too hot bite of fries you couldn't wait for, followed by ice cold Pepsi. Now that hits different. Suddenly, the energy kicks back in. The night goes longer. And the laughs don't stop. Because Pepsi brings out more flavor, more fun, and more of the moment. Food deserves Pepsi. Grab a Pepsi Zero Sugar today.

2:01Is there a royal sex scandal hidden in plain sight in the Bayer Tapestry? The Bayer Tapestry is, of course, the 11th century embroidery, which tells the story of the Norman conquest of 1066, and which is in the news right now because it's being loaned to the British Museum from France for a huge exhibition. It's probably the first time that the tapestry has been this side of the channel since it was made shortly after Duke William of Normandy's victory over King Howard of England at the Battle of Hastings. In this episode of the History Extra podcast,

2:32History Extra's content director, David Musgrove, talks to Professor Michael Lewis and Dr Emily Winkler about the famous elf-giver scene in the tapestry. Michael is the curator of the British Museum exhibition, which opens in September, and he is co-author, with David, of the story of the Bayer Tapestry. Emily is a medieval historian at Oxford University and the author of the Pocket Bayer Tapestry, which, as the name suggests, is a pocket-sized book that reproduces the 19th century drawings of the tapestry by French artist Victor Sansonetti, along with a commentary by Emily. So let's get into

3:09that conversation and the first voice you'll hear is David's. Let's get to the topic of the

The enigmatic elf-giver scene

3:15conversation, which is this elf-giver scene. It's about a quarter of a way through the tapestry and before it, we've got various things have happened. So I'll quickly summarise. We've had the adventures of Earl Harold Godwinson, the important Anglo-Saxon lord. He's gone on a sea voyage from the south coast of England. He's shipped up in northern France in the county of Pontiaux. He's been apprehended and roughly handled by the local tough guy, Count Guy. Then after an exchange of messages, Harold has been released into the custody of the more important figure, Duke William

3:46of Normandy. Harold and William have just then had an animated meeting in one of William's ducal palaces. William's seated in splendour, Harold's standing in some sort of agitated posture, and it looks as if Harold is trying to persuade William of something of what we do not know, and it's all conducted under the watching eyes of a band of onlookers. And then we get to the elf-giver scene. Now, I could describe it, but I don't know if either of you two want to talk through the elf-giver scene? So basically, we see an image of a man and a woman. The woman is within an arch, noted sometimes

4:19for its Scandinavian style. The woman has kind of got her hands out, but kind of quite close to her. She's kind of facing the priest. The priest is more extended. He has one hand, it seems, on his hip almost, and the other hand is kind of towards her face, passing through this arch, kind of invading her space. And he's either slapping or touching her on the face. And obviously, people have debated that in terms of how they understand this scene. Crucially, though, in the lower border below the priest is a naked figure that mimics that

4:51of the priest, but the other way around. And he is naked, and you can obviously see that he's naked. And that has suggested to many people that there's some sort of sexual scandal in this. I suppose one thing, maybe I'm jumping the gun slightly here, but one thing to bear in mind is whether that image was created as part of the original part of the tapestry or was added kind of later in the production process, perhaps by the embroiderers who did the lower border. Now, I don't know if we know for certain, but there's something to think about, I think, as we look at this scene. And another important aspect, really, is how we see that scene in the context of what you've

5:26described that comes before that, and maybe even afterwards. So yeah, there's a tendency, I suppose, to look at this scene in isolation. But I think, as with most things in the Bay of Tapestry, it's important to look at it in terms of what comes before and after. And I suppose the other thing that is worth mentioning is what the caption says to this image, because it's quite enigmatic, isn't it? So it's, Ubi unis clericus et elfgiver, wear a certain cleric and elfgiver, dot, dot, dot, no verb.

5:56And you can almost hear those dot, dot, dots in it, can't you? Fud, fud, fud. So that's all the context we've got. Is there anything you'd add to Michael's excellent description of what we're seeing? Any other elements that you think is worth bringing out? I think the way that those figures who are dressed in the main scene, how they're dressed is interesting as well. So Elfieva, I mean, it was a name for a woman of elite ranks. It was a very popular name among the elites. And she's dressed with her head covered very elegantly. The cleric

6:31is tonsured, which shows us his clerical career. But he's dressed more informally. So there's just some interesting elements of the way that the dress can tell us something else as well, as well as the behaviour and the gestures. And some people argue that the woman has got like a veil over her face. Do you agree with that? I'm not sure it's entirely clear. So I think I defer to Michael here in terms of the visual side of things. But I think we'll come on to that there are a number of different roles that she could be

7:06performing in that scene that are worth talking through. Yeah, Emily makes a good point in terms of the fact that the priest is dressed in secular clothing, because obviously there are other religious figures in the tapestry, some wearing ecclesiastical garments and some not. And so there's obviously been a choice in terms of this figure. In terms of the veil, I kind of tend to not see it there. I think people have imagined it a little bit, because they kind of want it to be there because of their way of interpreting who Elfieva is. And that's the danger, of course, with the tapestry, because it's stylised to some degree. So

7:39there is a temptation to kind of, yes, I can definitely see this. And I'm sure we'll talk about other bits like that as we talk about this scene. Yeah. And then just around it. So we've got this conversation in the palace that precedes it. And you can sort of argue that the figures are pointing towards Elfieva as if they're sort of referencing that that's part of the conversation or in some way links to what's happening. And then after the Elfieva scene, we go straight into military adventures. We go into the Breton campaign where William and

8:09Harold go fighting together against the rebellious Bretons. So it's kind of linking through into that element. Okay. So we've got a mystery woman, a man of God with wandering hands, a deliberately obtuse caption, and some sort of nudity in the borders, which may or may not be relevant. Who knows? And that's quite a tantalising little scene, isn't it? So we need to understand it. And I suppose it's all very easily explained. So all we need to know is who high status Elfieva was in 1064 and 1065, who happened to be in Normandy. So who is it?

Candidates for the mystery woman

8:43The question about who Elfieva is, is a very, very interesting one. And there are a number of different candidates because it was such a common name. And there's some suggestions out there that she was a kinswoman of King Harold. It's not confirmed that he had a sister of that name, but it's possible. He might've had cousins as well. It's also interesting sometimes in the Latin sources that the word for sister, soror, could also mean close female companion or cousin. So

9:17the nature of the relationship is a bit open, but it's interesting to think about who she might have been in terms of what the men in the palace would have been talking about. I tend to think that the marriage alliance discussion that she's somebody who could have been married to William or a family member of William is a plausible reading because of the urgency of events in the tapestry and the way things move through. I think the other thing about the scene too, that we've not mentioned yet,

9:50is that there are two very similar towers on one side of Elfieva and the cleric, and the other one is on the side of the palace. So those two towers almost form a frame around the scene. That's another suggestion that what's going on in the palace does have something to do with what's going on with Elfieva and the cleric. There are also suggestions that she might be from a prior generation. And I don't know if that's something you want to speak to a little bit, Michael.

10:21Yeah, I mean, definitely. I mean, I think that is the crux of it, isn't it really? Is this a person that's in the same space as Harold and William in their conversation and they're pointing back to her? They might not actually be pointing back to her at all, of course, because one of the suggestions is that Harold has gone to Normandy to bring back his kin, of which his nephew and his younger brother are two of those individuals. And there's a suggestion that one of those people in the palace, probably in ruin with them, is one of those relatives. And that's who they're

10:54talking about and pointing back to. But then the Elfieva scene doesn't make much sense in that sort context. Why have it at all? I tend to favour the view that because of the arch being its own space and because of the Scandinavian aspects to it, that that's particularly relevant in terms of interpreting this scene. So I like to favour the idea that we are talking about an Elfieva more in the past than in the present and that she is perhaps relevant to that conversation. Now, I think it's impossible almost that Harold and William are not talking about the succession, even if his primary

11:30motivation was to retrieve these family hostages. And in that context, then Elfieva becomes, you know, quite interesting and again, opens the numerous possibilities of who she might be. Like Emily says, it could be to do with some sort of, you know, marriage contraction that they've talked about. And some of the later sources tend to talk about that quite a bit, that as part of the deal, if you like, to support Williaming being king, there was a marriage kind of swap, which never happens, of course. So that kind of somehow devalidates it a little bit, I think. But yeah,

12:03it's the question, I guess, is whether it's in the past or the present. Yeah. Probably just need a little bit of context here, which I should have provided at the start. So your conceit here is that, you know, the Elfieva figure is possibly some sort of temporal, maybe even a geographical dislocation. And it's, you know, it's a flashback to a previous episode, and that's what they're talking about. And in terms of the succession question, this is all in the context of Edward the Confessor, the incumbent king of England in 1064, 1065, not having a clear cut heir, though some would say he had acknowledged Edgar Eveling as

12:39his heir. But this is the whole pretext of the tapestry is this, you know, this question over who would succeed Edward the Confessor and the clash between William and Harold, which followed Edward's untimely death. Well, just perfectly timely death. He was an old man at the start of 1066. So that's kind of the context of where we're at. And it is possible that this conversation that William and Harold are having in the palace is about that succession matter. But we don't know, we can't say that for sure, can we? No, but I think it would be odd, really, that Harold turns up in Normandy, and William doesn't

13:14kind of talk about this. If he really did believe at that point that he had a claim on the English throne, and we're talking about, you know, one year before the Norman Conquest. So I think it would be kind of unimaginable, really, that they, that isn't part of their conversation. Whether this has got anything to do with Alfgiva or not is another question. I mean, I suppose the other thing to kind of muddy the waters as well is, of course, the 1066 conquest and the Norman, if you like, infiltration into English politics is one thing. But there's also this kind of period of Scandinavian rule from

13:46Denmark. And I think, again, that provides another angle to it, because how does that kind of relate to the claims that both Harold and William have to the English throne? And also we know, which is not mention the Bayer tapestry, unless it is through this Alfgiva scene, this kind of Norwegian threat that the tapestry completely ignores. So some commentators, for example, have suggested the Alfgiva scene is a nod to that sort of Scandinavian question, either legitimising it or not, as the case may be.

Scandals of early rulers

14:17Yeah. And I suppose, again, I've let us get to the story about the context. So this all goes back to 1016, this moment when there was a previous Viking invasion, when Spain forkbed and then his son Canute invaded and basically deposed the previous king, Ethelred, the famous Unready, and his son Edmund Ironside. And that left us with Canute and his sons ruling from 1016 through to 1042. And that's kind of the context. And then amazingly, Edward the Confessor from the old Wessex house returns and takes the throne in a remarkable turnabout. So there's that whole, that's the whole

14:53Scandinavian underpinning that you were talking about, Michael. And that brings us into one of the possible candidates. Like there are, as Emily, you've said, there are numerous Elfgivers in the background here who could have been at historical figures. One of them is Elfgiver of Northampton, who was the wife of Canute and gave birth to two children. There's this curious story about her not being able to conceive children and giving children to Canute who weren't hers. One from a priest and one from a cobbler. And this kind of undermines their claim to the throne

15:29because obviously they weren't legitimate. And a suggestion that the story is kind of dropping into that. Yeah. So Elfgiver of Northampton is a really interesting one. Like you were saying, Dave, she seemed to have these two kind of relationships with different men producing different children, which were then sort of questioned in terms of their legitimacy. It's quite an interesting one to look at. I think it is interesting that at the time, anyway, people are obviously using these stories, whether they're real or not, to kind of, if you like, wobble the claims of other sorts of

16:00people. And of course, that is not only about Elfgiver of Northampton, but other Elfgivers that have been suggested to be the Elfgiver in the tapestry as well. So there's a general theme, I think, coming through these stories in discrediting women and the legitimacy in terms of their offspring, which I think is kind of interesting, actually, because for most of the late Anglo-Saxon period, it seems to me the bloodline doesn't fundamentally absolutely need to be the major thing. And in fact, you know, obviously William the Conqueror himself was illegitimate. So it's kind

16:35of interesting that it becomes a thing, even though in practice, it doesn't seem to be something that stops people from becoming kings or rulers. But essentially, through this, Schwein, who was then, I think, king in Denmark, and also Harold Hereford, they're both questioned in terms of their legitimacy to be king, based on these allegations against Elfgiver of Northampton. It's a super complex web of individuals, relationships between them, and the coming and going between these individuals as well, that kind of come back and come into focus as well. So yeah, super complicated

17:09to explain. And Harold's family had come into power. I mean, they were wealthy to begin with, the Godwin family, but that was very much strengthened during the reign of King Knut. And Harold's family was also related to the Danish royal house. So there's a family connection in a sort of North Sea world between Harold and William and a lot of the previous Anglo-Danish kings and their queens. I think it is really interesting to think about this kind of gradual shift that we see through

17:41the 11th century, from Scandinavia, through the introduction of Normans, you know, through Edward the Confessor. And then obviously, after the conquest through William, you know, this gradual shift from Northern Europe to kind of more Central Western type Europe as well. So it is something that's completely relevant. And I think people would probably be familiar with a lot of these stories. The question is, you know, what would they have seen when they saw the Elfgiva scene, which we imagine, I think we probably would agree, this would have been immediately obvious

18:12to them. And now we've just kind of completely lost it. Well, this is the problem, isn't it? Yes. We assume that this would have been a perfectly obvious point to anyone looking at it 950 years ago. And today, we sadly are deprived of the main facts of this story. I thought we were going to solve it. And we are going to solve it in a second. I mean, I think it's also interesting to think about whether it was, I mean, I guess going back to this question of the missing verb. So sometimes the verb to be was assumed. So it could just be the case that it's saying

18:44here are a cleric in Elfgiva. That doesn't happen anywhere else in the tapestry. So it would be a bit unusual. But if the reason for taking out the verb is to imply or suggest something, it could be meaning to suggest a story that was well known at the time, but that had multiple different interpretations. So I mean, if it was something discussed at the palace, maybe there were people outside listening in and thinking, oh, well, maybe they agreed for him to marry her or no, actually, maybe she had an affair or maybe she went to enter a nunnery instead. And so the scene

19:17could be as much representing the conversation and the mystery at the time as a specific event that was only open to a single interpretation. That's a nice take. That would be very tapestry to be allowing multiple interpretations in one space.

Alternative theories and candidates

19:32Yeah, I like that. So just a few other Elfgivers in the frame. Another one would have been Elfgiver of York that she's been suggested as well. She was the first wife of Ethelred, the Unready. So way back in time. And her role in things, there isn't any particular scandal associated with her that I'm aware of, but she's just, she's called Elfgiver. And, and also take your pick on that. But she, she was the ancestor of Edgar Eveling via Edmund Ironside. And Edgar Eveling is this character who's been brought back from Europe to be the presumed heir of Edward the Confessor. So

20:07maybe there's some sense that like, it's, it's relating to that episode, that man, and, and sort of suggest the conversation was about him and maybe his legitimacy or otherwise to be king. Hmm. I haven't really thought about that one too much, to be honest. And now's the time to think about it. Yeah. And that does, that does sort of raise the question about whether this figure at the bottom is added in later or not, because obviously if that figure isn't originally there in the design, if you like, of the tapestry, then it does open the possibility for other Elfgivers.

20:38But like you said, there's not really, as I'm aware, any particular sexual scandal around her. So what's the relevance? Yeah. And that, but then if we want a scandal, sex scandal, we can go back further in time to another Elfgiver. We can go back to the mid 10th century and Ehadwi and his menage a trois with his wife Elfgiver and his mother-in-law, which, you know, I don't think has ever been suggested as the possible route. Well, I'm suggesting it now. What about that? Well, you know, we could go way back in time. The, the figure could be Abbott Dunstan pulling, pulling, uh, no, it doesn't

21:11work actually because he would be pulling Edgar. Away. Yeah. And it doesn't, doesn't stack up at all. I think the scene would, would look a bit different too, if, if that were, if that were the story that they were, they were going for. So you don't like that one? You need two women, don't you, Shirley? You would need two women. Yeah. More women in the tapestry. Yeah. Maybe that's why this one hasn't been suggested because it doesn't really make sense.

21:33Another one of Dave's bright ideas. Okay. So, so there's, there's a few sort of, you know, fairly random, there's a lot of Elfgivers, but, but none of them really necessarily align directly with what we're seeing. Do you want to give me a couple of other candidates who might be Elfgivers? Well, there's two that kind of come up in the other sources or secondary sources, I should say. One is the Abyss of Wilton and the other is the Abyss of Learminster. So two Abysses. And if you go Wilton, then I'll do Learminster. Oh, sure. Okay. So Wilton Abbey was essentially the place for elite women to go to, to study. So

22:09some women would study there, even if, if, even if they didn't take the vows, but it was, it was wealthy and it was a place you'd go to be educated. And it was a cultural center and respected even outside of the ecclesiastical world. There was a story told at the time, the story went that the, the Abyss, Elfjeva, that she'd been blinded and her eyesight was miraculously restored. So one interpretation by Patricia Stevenson, I believe, is that the figure in, in, in the Biotapestry,

22:43the cleric who's reaching towards her is her confessor, who is pointing out the miraculous restoration of her eyesight. So, so in that respect, the gesture is seen not as something aggressive or even tactile, but as revelatory. Yeah. And again, the naked figure, because it's not a sexual scandal, that one essentially, is it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it's, so not at all. So again, it would kind of suggest that the figure doesn't kind of fit in. And then, you know, again, when that figure sort of picks up. One that is definitely a sexual scandal is Harold's older brother called Schwein. He got himself into quite a lot of bother

23:19and used to get kicked out of the country on kind of regular occasions for his misdemeanors. And one of the most famous ones is when he had abducted the Abyss of Leerminster, who's not quite, quite called Elfjeva, but it seems that all of these names that are related to Elfjeva, and we haven't actually talked about the ematology of this actually, but it is quite interesting. But basically, this Abyss of Leerminster was taken away against her will, and he kept her as long as he wanted. That's the sort of scandal. The question is, why would that be in the Bayer

23:54Tapestry? I mean, maybe, you know, again, it's a slight on the Godwin family and therefore Harold, but I don't think anyone can seriously say that Harold is like his brother. I mean, their characteristics seem to be quite different. And I think even in, you know, contemporary sources, they kind of acknowledge that Harold is not his elder brother. So a bit of a stretch to imagine that. Yeah, but you do have a scandal and a sexual one. Yeah. And I guess, could I just jump in on the Abyss of Wilton? So there's some possibility that this Abyss, and actually another Abyss, that these are Harold's kinswoman. And so one tension

24:31might be, I mean, in terms of the question, why would this scene be in the Bayer Tapestry if she were a candidate for a marriage alliance but had already taken the vows or was unavailable or perhaps even had died? There's been a recent suggestion that the scene actually shows a mortuary and funerary scene and that the cleric is touching her face to give her the last rites or to invite her to the next world. So if for some reason she were unavailable for the marriage alliance, that this could be a scene representing what might have stopped a war. A bit like the

25:05oath scene later on where Harold is seen to take an oath and we don't know what he says, but this was another moment that was open to interpretation, but also could have been a way of averting war. This episode is brought to you by Accenture. When your advertising operations fall out of sync, everything else follows. Spotify and Accenture are working together to reinvent the rhythm of ad sales, using automation, analytics, and smarter workflows to simplify campaign delivery and access

25:37better data across the business. The result? Less time spent on operations, more time connecting brands with the moments and fandoms that matter most. Learn more at Accenture.com slash Spotify.

25:50When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed Sponsored Jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications, and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. That's Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs.

26:20Visible puts unlimited 5G data and hotspot in the palm of your hand. Powered by Verizon's 5G network, with no contract holding you back. And for a limited time, you can get Visible for just $19 a month for 12 months when you use promo code SAVE6. All the features of big wireless service for half the cost. Tap the banner to switch today. Terms apply. Standard rate applies at month 13. See Visible.com for plan features and network management details.

Emma of Normandy as a contender

26:48So we've had some quite deep readings and some fairly tenuous and unlikely readings of what this figure might be. But then there's one person we haven't mentioned, who I think you favor, Michael, who you think might well be a good candidate. And that's Emma of Normandy, who isn't called Elfgiver. She's called Emma of Normandy. So that's a problem to start with, which I'm sure you will address shortly. But just for context, Emma, she was from the Norman royal family and she was married to two kings. She was married to Ethelred and then to Canute after Ethelred's death

27:22and the mother of kings as well. So why would she be Elfgiver? Well, when she came over from Normandy to marry Ethelred the Unready, she did take up an English name, Elfgiver. So she does have the right name, which is better than some candidates actually, to be honest, in terms of the Elfgiver mystery. And she's mentioned in records as well under that English name. So I think we can be fairly safe in saying that she was known as Elfgiver to some people in England after she became queen. So for a long time. And obviously she was a powerhouse

27:56in English politics, both under Ethelred to a degree, but particularly under Canute. I think she was fundamental to him in terms of maintaining control in England. And we've also already mentioned Elfgiver of Northampton. But you can see that these different sides are supporting their kin when King Canute dies in 1035. Then you kind of see this struggle of power between these different sons. And at the same time, all of these claims against these women sort of pop out. Now, the

28:31claim against Emma is that she was having an affair with Alfwyn, who was the Bishop of Winchester. And again, these kind of accusations kind of surface a bit later, particularly in the 12th century. But there's good reason to believe that they were being kind of circulated a little bit before. Now, the actual kind of relationship between them is not gone into in any sort of depth. And there is these later traditions that she then had to do this kind of trial by ordeal to demonstrate her

29:02innocence. And she was forgiven for this, it seems. But she is an interesting individual, because obviously, the whole basis of William's claim was on the fact that Emre of Normandy was a mother of Edward the Confessor. And he owed his position in England, according to Norman sources, on the basis of Norman intervention or Norman support. Yeah. And William was directly related to her. She was his great aunt. So that gives him some sort blood claim.

29:32Yeah. I think one thing that's interesting anyway, just about this sort of period, is what these blood claims really mean. And after the conquest, of course, you know, all sorts of things are thrown out by the Norman apologists about why William can justify his claim on the throne. At the end of the day, I don't think it really matters. I think as long as you can take something by force, that's the legitimacy you need. And that's obviously the problem with Edgar Etheling, of course, is that he had a lot of the legitimacy in terms of how we might see a modern king, if you like, but he didn't have any of the power to take that through. And that's

30:06why he's pushed to one side. But for me, Emre of Normandy is quite an interesting sort of candidate, but it's not necessarily in her claim, but also, you know, where the source material for the depiction of Alf Giva might have come from. But we might come on to that in a bit.

Visual prototypes and manuscript clues

30:25Let's come on to that in a second. But I just want to analyse this, sort of the sex scandal bit a bit more. So if there was a scandal, and if she was having this relationship with this bishop, and, you know, that's a bad thing, then you can see the cleric as kind of the bishop, and then the naked man beneath with the prominent member being, you know... I knew he would get it in somewhere. But I mean, it's personal to the story, isn't it, in the sense that, you know, that would suggest, you know, this element of sex scandal. But then there's also this other naked man who we haven't mentioned in the borders preceding this, underneath the conversation between Harold

30:59and William in the palace. There's another naked figure in the border who's weirdly doing carpentry or something like that, naked. And the suggestion has been that what that is, is a man preparing kind of the plough shares upon which Emma had to do the ordeal. So she has to walk over boiling hot plough shares to prove her innocence. So that kind of would be the link through, right? Yeah, but I think for me, that man doesn't look like he's putting out plough shares. I think, again, someone has, you know, supported the... I can't remember if it was... I think

31:32it was Freeman that provided this idea. I think, obviously, again, and this is a danger for all of us as historians looking at... and art historians looking at this, is that you kind of want to see what you want to see to make this story sort of fit. For me, he's definitely sort of chopping wood. But you're right. The idea was that he is actually putting out these plough shares of this kind of hot ordeal that she had to walk over these. And then her feet were fine at the end of it. And she was proven innocent. It's an odd thing to be doing. Where do you stand on the naked figures in the border? Well, I think the others, I don't think there's any clear indication that they're connected,

32:07that they're all part of the same story. I mean, as far as the one directly under the Elphi of a scene, one thing I find interesting there, I mean, we know that he's mimicking and mirroring the gesture of the cleric. But I mean, mirroring doesn't mean an exact copy. It does contain this essence of opposite. So I do think it's interesting he's reaching in the opposite direction from the cleric. And actually, sometimes when we crop the scene, we crop out the palace. But the naked man

32:37is connected with both the palace scene and the Elphi of a scene. So there's a sort of diagonal border that goes up on each side of him. So if he is connected with the scene, he's connecting both scenes. So I've wondered if it's possible that he's representing the kind of ineffective palace discussions of the men on that side, trying to arrange this woman's future in some way, in contrast with something that the cleric is doing, which is maybe reaching towards her or pulling in a more

33:08ecclesiastical direction. And if we compare him to some of the other scenes with the naked men, there's an earlier scene that we were talking about a few panels earlier that's much more sexually explicit. And the body language between the man and the naked woman is much more suggestive of sexuality and shame. The figure in the margin here, he's naked and he's reaching, but there's no one interacting with him. And in the Elphi of a scene itself, it's not clear that if the gesture

33:42from the cleric is meant to be aggressive in some way, there's no indication from her stance or her kind of gentle gesture that she's participating in any way. So I think it's a kind of case where if we want to look for a scandal, we can go and sort of find examples of nudity in the margins. But in each case, they mean something different and sort of gesture, dress and context are all other clues, I think. Okay, that's interesting, because that actually ties into the way you've taken the

34:13Emma argument a bit further and thinking about the possible prototypes for the image that is shown. So tell us a bit about your argument there. We know that the design of the Bayer tapestry was borrowing from Canterbury manuscripts, almost certainly. What we're left with from, you know, the late Anglo-Saxon period in terms of the manuscripts is not the complete corpus that once existed. And it is biased towards Canterbury manuscripts generally, because they're the ones that survive. But still, it is quite good fun to go through them and say, is there any prototypes

34:43for the Aufgeber image? And one manuscript we know he was definitely drawing from was this Anglo-Saxon copy of Prudentus' Psychiomachia. The Psychiomachia is basically talking about the kind of wars between different vices, different characteristics. And it kind of goes, for me, it kind of goes to this idea, essentially, are the people who are creating the tapestry borrowing from manuscripts because they're nice drawings and they suit their purpose, or whether they actually have some imbued meanings with them. Or maybe they do both, you know, they mix a little

35:18bit. And so based on this image that looks like Aufgeber that's in this manuscript, I've kind of been looking at the fact, well, if it is this one and it does have imbued meanings, what could possibly that mean? And for me, that does kind of fit in quite well with the sort of Emma figure being someone who kind of imports, if you like, to England, this kind of Norman claim by accident, I guess. And the fact that all the participants in the kind of conflict, if you like, for 1066 have to

35:53put themselves in some position in relation to her story, I guess, her overshadowing this. Now, I think it's obviously more important for William because that's substantially the basis of his claim, less so from Harold and maybe Edgar Etheling to a degree. And obviously, because of the suspicion on Aufgeber of Northampton and Emma as well, it plays into the kind of Danish argument a little bit. So yeah, for me, I think it's just worth thinking about, I'm not saying I've got any conclusions

36:23necessarily here, but it's worth thinking about what would be the meanings behind including a particular image, if this was the image. Like I said, there's other Aufgeber's you can find in, or similar images to her in other manuscripts. So it doesn't kind of completely work, but we know that this manuscript was borrowed. And for me, that is worth scavenging this manuscript for those sorts of links. What do you think, Emily? Do you like this sort of deep reading? I think Emma's a really interesting contender. I mean, I think personally, I would tend to go for

36:55the idea that it's an immediate relative and that this is part of the fast paced action with people who have been alive recently. But as far as Emma as a contender, if she's someone historic, I think she's the best one. I mean, one of the things that chroniclers pretty much agreed upon within a generation or two of the Norman conquest was that Emma was the reason all of this came about. So they weren't necessarily blaming her personally, but essentially saying these chroniclers were taking the long view and looking back and saying, well, it was really when Emma moved from Normandy to

37:31England, that the whole orbit of planets in this world changed and that moved a center somehow from Normandy to England. And that was the event that set future events in motion to bring William over and the conquest. So there was this sense that she had made an impact at the time and that her memory of having made such a difference really, really endured. So there's certainly a sense in the way that people were thinking and writing about this at the time, that she was the kind of figure who would be portrayed in a leading role like that. Yeah. And I think Emma on top of that is interesting,

38:06not only in terms of the Norman connection, but the way throughout that whole period, she kind of switches and changes her allegiance to her differing sons in order to get them on the throne. I mean, in some ways she doesn't seem to care who it is in terms of her sons or even her husband's who's on the throne, as long as she is the power behind the throne. She's just such a dominant matriarch in this period. In some ways, it seems incredible that she's not in the Bayer Tapestry. So I like the idea that she might be, even if it's kind of an allusion to her.

38:41Yeah. Memorably portrayed in the BBC drama King and Conqueror recently as this terribly scheming matriarch. Yeah, I think she pretty was scheming. I mean, to be honest, she wasn't unique in that respect. I mean, obviously, if you look at all of the characters, I know we kind of sometimes, you know, quite like Harold, but, you know, all of these people got into these positions because they were completely cutthroat in their operations. And Emma was, I think for a woman to survive at this time and remain such a powerhouse, they had to be like this probably. But she

39:14is probably the most scheming of them all, in my view, of the people there. She's completely ruthless in terms of her attitudes towards her own children, just to keep herself in power. And obviously, Edward the Confessor famously, you know, when he became king, he basically put her away for a short time because he couldn't be done with her. He said she did nothing for him when he was a kid, nothing for him when he became king as well. But he didn't, she wasn't in the background for long. He soon brought her back and then she

39:45obviously died quite quickly. I mean, if it is her and if the scene is an allusion to a possible scandal, I mean, perhaps one of the reasons that it would only be a light suggestion, you know, that she still portrayed standing there nobly with certain presence in this portico is because the scandal was talked about, but it didn't really get anywhere. So there was a later chronicler that basically made Edward the Confessor look a bit silly in this story that

40:15talked about her walking over the hot coals, proving her innocence. And then Edward the Confessor basically comes up and says, sorry, mom, sorry, I doubted you. So it could be a way, again, if the tapestry is trying to offer a reading open to different interpretations, it could, it could be, remember this story, you know what she's like, but then also, also look at the standing she has and how consistent and still in a way she has been around all these other moving parts of sons and husbands.

40:45That's fascinating. Yeah. And in that sense, actually, it's also quite interesting in terms of thinking about the figure at the bottom again, because again, that completely changes the situation. So on one part, you know, she is the legitimacy for William's rule in terms of a Norman production behind the Bayer tapestry, his claim on the throne. Soon as you enter that figure at the bottom and the sexual scandal, and assuming that may have not been at the beginning in the kind of design concept, but added by an Anglo-Saxon English embroiderer, then it kind of switches it completely against her. You know, it kind of undermines her legitimacy and

41:19therefore the legitimacy of the Norman conquest. So I think these components are really interesting to think about. But ultimately, there's so many questions as well.

Unresolved ambiguities of the scene

41:29Okay, we need to wrap up. But before we do, let's kind of offer some concluding thoughts. Emily, have we been asking the right questions? Have we been interrogating this in the right way? Where do you think we should end up in our understanding of this scene? I think since we haven't come away with an answer, and it's possible that it's not right that we should have an answer that even if we're meant to know who she is, that the point could have been that there were different stories told about her and that people in England and Normandy might have had different views about this Elfieva. But I think the question to end

42:02on is when we're going back and looking at the tapestry, is to really think about why this scene is there, is to think about it as a moment in a story. And I think when we actually look at different sections of the tapestry, so if we crop it a bit differently, we can notice different things. So if we crop the scene such that we include the palace, we might notice different things about her than if we only include her and the cleric. So I think I would say we should end on going in with more questions, but to sort of think about why would this moment

42:36have mattered to the story of the Norman Conquest as told by the embroiderers? What do you think? Well, for me, it's a frustration, of course, that we don't know the answer. But I agree that it allows us to kind of think about it in a more sort of open way. And I think it does fit in quite well with the general ambiguity in the tapestry in terms of, like Emily was saying, how certain things can be understood in different ways depending on your perspective. And I think that's quite a nice way to think of it, because obviously this is an Anglo-Norman

43:07work involved, as far as we're aware, you know, both Normans and English. And they would have had very different perspectives on 1066. So I think it is quite nice in a way that when people are viewing the tapestry, they'll be able to take their own sort of perspective with them. And how Emma or the Elfgiver figure or whoever she is, comes into that is worth kind of thinking about as well. Thank you very much for the conversation. It's been good fun. Emily, Michael, thank you for your time.

43:34Michael Lewis has written an article about Elfgiver in a forthcoming collection of essays in honour of the great tapestry scholar Shirley-Anne Brown. So look out for that in the autumn. The story of the Bayer Tapestry by Michael Lewis and David Musgrove is on sale now, as is the Pocket Bayer Tapestry by Emily Winkler.

44:03Have no fear. Chosen Foods is here to defend your favourite foods from the forces of seedy oils and sketchy ingredients. With cooking oils, salad dressings and mayo, all powered by the good fats from 100% pure avocado oil and simple, delicious ingredients. Chosen Foods. NFL football season is here, which means when you switch to Verizon, it feels like... Touchdown! Because you get NFL Sunday ticket from YouTube on us when you buy an eligible 5G phone on select unlimited plans, which means you can watch every out-of-market game every Sunday afternoon.

44:37And it's all on us. Now that's the Verizon way to kick off the NFL football season, right? Switch and get NFL Sunday ticket from YouTube on us. Only with Verizon. This episode is brought to you by ChatGPT. Hey, it's Bill Simmons from the Bill Simmons Podcast. Have you guys heard about ChatGPT work? It's the new way to use ChatGPT for bigger multi-step projects. And when you need more than just answers, give ChatGPT work access to your apps

45:07and files, and it can create real work documents like spreadsheets, slides, and structured reports. Get started at ChatGPT.com by selecting work mode, available on Plus and Pro Plans. Hi, this is Sam from the Good Food Podcast. If you love all things good food, join us at the festive Good Food Show from the 26th to the 29th of November at Birmingham's NEC. With a lineup of James Martin, John Turow, Lisa Faulkner, Ping Coombs, and more, you'll be able to get plenty of cooking ideas for your Christmas entertaining. Find out more at goodfoodshow.com. See you there.