Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Tapestry row sparks new Norman conflict



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 June 2008
IT IS the most famous cartoon strip in history, the story of the Norman Conquest in 1066 detailed in colourful weave and stitch.



But the Bayeux Tapestry, one of France's national treasures, was, historians now believe, actually made in Britain and should be repatriated.

The 70-metre tapestry that depicts the campaign of William the Conqueror currently sits in the town of Bayeux, in Normandy, where records show it has been since at least 1476.

Yet there is a growing evidence that, instead of being created in France as was previously thought, the tapestry was stitched by English hands and should now be sent back.

The British government has twice before requested a loan of the tapestry, first for the Queen's coronation in 1953 and again in 1966, for the 900th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings. Neither request was successful. However, yesterday the editor of BBC History Magazine said that the tapestry should be allowed to be displayed in England.

Dave Musgrove said most experts were now agreed it was created on this side of the Channel.

He said: "There is a pretty good academic consensus that it could well have been made in Canterbury. The Latin script that accompanies the pictorial images shows signs of being written by someone who came from an Anglo-Saxon background. Secondly the imagery in the tapestry is very similar to imagery that we know was in illuminated manuscripts that we know were in Canterbury's library at the time.

"It is an iconic document of English history and wouldn't it be amazing to have it shown in England where there is a very good chance it was made, and wouldn't that inspire people to get involved in medieval history? The crowds would come flocking."

According to French legend, the tapestry was created by Queen Matilda, William the Conqueror's wife, with the assistance of her ladies-in-waiting and as a result the tapestry is also known as "La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde" (Queen Matilda's Tapestry). In recent decades, however, scholarly analysis indicates that it was commissioned by Bishop Odo, William's half-brother, possibly to display in Bayeux Cathedral at the time of the building's completion in 1077.

However, as the Bishop's main power base at the time was in Kent, the tapestry is now believed to have been designed and constructed in England by Anglo-Saxon artists. Yet one other candidate, recently put forward by Carola Hicks, an art historian at Cambridge University, is Edith of Wessex, the widow of Edward the Confessor, whose death in 1066 led to the dispute over succession and the battle of Hastings. Ms Hick's posits the theory that Edith, one of only three clothed women portrayed in the tapestry, had it made to strengthen her new position in the Norman hierarchy and to show her support for the new King William.

Over the years the tapestry has been used in opening or closing credits of a number of films including El Cid, which starred Charlton Heston and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves with Kevin Costner. The style of the tapestry, which was described by the artist, Bryan Talbot, as the "first known British comic strip", was even parodied in The Simpsons. Michael Lewis, the deputy director of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, and the author of The Real World of the Bayeux Tapestry, said: "I think it would be lovely to see it in this country. If the tapestry was returned, it would be possible to display it with the works that it was influenced by."

However, Sylvette Lemagnen, curator of the Bayeux Tapestry Museum in Normandy, where the artefact currently sits behind four layers of armoured glass, said any move would require high-level permission. "It is not my responsibility nor the responsibility of the town of Bayeux to answer such a question because the tapestry belongs to the French state," she said.

Tug-of-war for objects of desire

THE Bayeux Tapestry is not alone in being desired by different nations.

• Elgin Marbles: Also known as the Parthenon Marbles, they sit in the British Museum and have been the subject of numerous requests for return to Greece. The Greek government wants them returned to the Acropolis from where they were removed between 1801 and 1812 by agents for Thomas Bruce, the 7th Earl of Elgin.

• Lewis Chessmen: The chessmen were discovered in 1831 in a sandbank at the head of the Bay of Uig on the west coast of Lewis. Today, 11 pieces are in the National Museum of Scotland, while 82 are in the British Museum in London. Last year, SNP politicians called for their return to where they were found.

• Indian Ghost Shirt: The Lakota Sioux Ghost Shirt, believed to have been worn by a Sioux warrior, used to reside in the Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow, after being given to the city in the 19th century. It was handed back to the Lakota Sioux tribe after they requested its return.


The full article contains 836 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 24 June 2008 11:53 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 25/06/2008 02:58:02
And how much Scottish stuff have the English sacked from us. Give it a flippin' rest, limeys.
2

indune1,

Canada 25/06/2008 03:21:55
1- BTO - a primary three class in 1066 would have been well-educated. I suggest you compare the drawings made by Sioux and Cheyenne warriors after the Battle of the Little Big Horn and you will see an amazing similarity. Poor art work? I disagree but yours is but one opinion.

2 - Neil - I think you meant to say stolen vice sacked. If you sack something you basically destroy it, therefore there's not much left to be returned.
3

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 25/06/2008 05:14:29
My apologies. Would you accept looted as a fair compromise? There are some excellent pictographs at Writing on Stone Provincial Park on Alberta's Milk River of similar quality.
4

Jardine,

25/06/2008 05:42:16
"But the Bayeux Tapestry, one of France's national treasures, was, historians now believe, actually made in Britain and should be repatriated."

Don't you mean England? Britain didn't come into existence until 1603 or 1707.

I'm bracing for shoals of pedants to put me right on this.
5

Pilrig.,

Livingston 25/06/2008 05:59:39
Bring 'em on - for someone who disenae care, you're gettin all het up aboot it.
6

Saul Tyre,

Germany 25/06/2008 06:05:17
The English get the Bayeux tapestry, we get the Lewis chess pieces and the French get to keep the good weather. Everybody wins!
7

Alfie the OK,

25/06/2008 07:17:11
Lewis chessmen - I say return them to where they came.... (That'll be Norway then)....

And as for the Elgin Marbles? They should have been left where they were on the top of the Parthenon. That way, everyone would be happy... oh, and the Turks would have had summat to fire at with their cannons...

Bayeaux Tapestry. Made in Kent by Kentish women under Norman direction.It's English and should be returned. Mind you, so should one of the original copies of Magna Carta which was bought by Yankee gold not 6 months ago.

I don't know about you, but I reckon we need a sort of Alex Salmond type figure to start fighting for us, the English. Hey, maybe we could also have our own English Parliament as well? That way, maybe we too could have someone at national level who will fight for our culture for a change.
8

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 25/06/2008 07:46:48
#6 Jardine.

Briton has existed for over 30 000 years! Britons lived here throughout the last ice age (much lower down of course as the sea level was well below present levels then thanks to the water being taken up in ice form). Caesar knew it as Briton.

The Normans invaded Briton. Robert of Bruge (de Bruce) came from Flanders so Alba was also invaded by Normans.

Carola Hicks mentioned a brilliant exact replica of the tapestry on show in Reading. It is better displayed and identical to the one in France.

If we returned all artefacts to country of origin then the museums would be bare. Lewis chessmen would end up in Norway.
9

Ken S.,

Reading 25/06/2008 07:47:23
There's a modern copy of the Tapestry in Reading Museum.

If the principle is that everything is to be repatriated to wherever it came from, the museums of the world would see a pretty radical change in stock!
10

Selgovae,

25/06/2008 07:59:52
"There is a pretty good academic consensus that it could well have been made in Canterbury"

I guess that clinches it.
11

Royster,

25/06/2008 08:08:58
Don't see why the English would want it as it shows them getting a good pasting.
12

Phil the Flooter,

25/06/2008 08:27:32
Ths usual suspects.
Wait for ANY story to do with England and the haters start posting.

Some of you also need to read some ENGLISH history instead of letting your CHIP rule your heads.
13

Nell,

The Preservation Hall 25/06/2008 08:30:04
No. 18:- That thought had crossed my mind. The Scots have given back the shirt to the indians. The English keep the Elgin Marbles and the Lewis Chessmen and now they want the Bayeux Tapestry.
14

It's me!,

25/06/2008 08:32:21
Maybe the Lewis chessmen could end up in Orkney or Shetland considering that they belonged to Norway at the time.

Maybe it's time for Norway to redeem their pawn!
15

Nell,

The Preservation Hall 25/06/2008 08:40:17
If the English do get the Bayeux Tapestry would it be one in the eye for the French?
16

Drum Major,

Brisbane, Australia 25/06/2008 08:45:15
One Day, a long time ago there lived an English woman who did not whine, nag or bitch. But that was a long time ago ......and it was just that one day.

Glesga Mortuary

A man who just died is delivered to a Glasgow mortuary wearing an expensive, expertly tailored black suit. Big Tam the mortician asks the deceased's wife how she would like the body dressed. He points out he does look very good in the black suit he is already wearing.

The widow, however, says that she always thought her husband looked best in blue. She gives Tam a blank cheque and says, 'I don't care what it costs, but please have my husband in a blue suit for the viewing'.

The woman returns the next day. To her delight she finds her husband dressed in a gorgeous blue suit with a chalk stripe; the suit fits him perfectly. She says to Tam, 'Whatever the cost, I am very satisfied. You did an excellant job and I am very grateful. How much did you spend?' To her astonishment, Tam presents her with the blank cheque. 'Nae charge' he says.

'No, really, I must pay you for the cost of that exquisite blue suit!' she says. 'Honestly, Hen', Tam says 'it didnae cost nothin. You see a deid gentleman of about your husbands size was brought in shortly after you left yesterday, and he was wearing an attractive blue suit. I asked his missus if she minded him going to his grave wearing a black suit instead, and she said it made nae difference as long as he looked nice.'

'Sae I switched their heids!'
17

Gunn,

UK 25/06/2008 08:47:16
For goodness sake, can we have a touch of perspective around here! One, just ONE, English academic says he thinks the tapestry should come back to be SHOWN in England, and even he isn't saying they should stay here!

Jeesh!

Some people just like an argument even without just cause.

And then there are those who just canae wait to find any excuse to have a pop at the English ... if yer'd put as much energy into making Scotland great as y'do in expressing that big negative chip on your shoulders aboot England, our home would be the richest in the World! But no. All you wannae do is sit on yer ar#es, wallow in yer Scottish self-pity, and moan "if only THEY hadn't" instead of "we will do" and "we ARE doing". Yer bunch of Moaning Minnies! Scotland expects better of ye.
18

wayne bijlyeerheid,

25/06/2008 09:03:21
>"But the Bayeux Tapestry, ....., was,...., actually made in Britain and should be repatriated."<
"Britain" did not exist at the time of the conquest of England and consequent expropriation and expulsion of the Anglo-Saxon "aristocracy".
This is a matter wholly of interest to English people, ok the story may be interesting but the Scotsman shouldn't be trying to propagate this spurious, retrospective national past as if we all have a reason to give a d*mn about some moth eaten relic of England's history.


19

justboy,

edinburgh 25/06/2008 09:03:37
I've seen it and it was vastly impressive. Leave it where it is I say, I'd rather go to Normandy than London to see it any day!
20

AJ Fife,

25/06/2008 09:10:11
Typical English; they jist canny keep their haunds aff other folk's property.

Having visited Bayeux recently, I've just got to say it's an amazing piece of work, set in a beautiful town in a magnificent part of France. Let's hope it stays that way!

21

Guga II,

Rockall 25/06/2008 09:28:44
#14. You're forgetting, the English, in the form of the Angles and Saxons, didn't crawl out of the swamps in Germany and come to this country till around the 6th century.

22

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 09:39:47
AJ Fife (28): "Typical English; they jist canny keep their haunds aff other folk's property."

I have no wish for the Bayeux Tapestry to be returned to England, and agree that Bayeux is a lovely town. Nevertheless, why is it right for the Stone of Scone to be returned to Scotland, but not for the Tapestry to be return to England? What's the difference?
23

Boy Wonder,

25/06/2008 09:54:30
The "British" Museum will have my support for this on the day they return all of their ill-gotten loot to their respective countries of origin ... or their present day inheritors.
24

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 10:05:16
Boy Wonder (31): "The "British" Museum will have my support for this on the day they return all of their ill-gotten loot"

The British Museum has not made any comment. As the article states, a BBC historian has suggested that they should be displayed in England. In general, there seems to be no particular English wish for the Tapestry to come to England.

Still, I repeat my point in 30: why is it right for the Stone of Scone to be returned to Scotland, but not for the Tapestry to be returned to England? What's the difference?
25

Pete McClelland,

25/06/2008 10:06:15
#30. Probably because there is no shred of a doubt that your Edward stole the stone of destiny whereas there's not a shred of conclusive proof that the tapestry was made in Ingerland.

That's the difference.
26

Ned,

Morningside 25/06/2008 10:07:21
The French should keep the Bayeux Tapestry.

The British Museum should keep the Elgin Marbles.

The British Museum should keep the Lewis Chessmen.

Kelvingrove should have kept the Indian ghost Shirt.

Top museums look after and safeguard those and all works of history.

Go to the British Museum , the Louvre , etc and you will get my point ( I hope ).

Lets not get to carried away with selfish nationalism. All those works are universal and should have the best care for all generations.
27

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 10:09:34
Pete (33): "Probably because there is no shred of a doubt that your Edward stole the stone of destiny whereas there's not a shred of conclusive proof that the tapestry was made in Ingerland."

Edward I took the stone as a spoil of war, certainly. However, are you saying that you would support the return of the Tapestry if conclusive proof of English manufacture became available?
28

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 10:10:43
Ned (34): "The French should keep the Bayeux Tapestry.

The British Museum should keep the Elgin Marbles."

Your argument seems to imply that you believe that it would have been right for the Stone of Scone to remain in Westminster Abbey? Is this your view?
29

AJ Fife,

25/06/2008 10:18:14
Fairfax,

The difference is - the Stone of Destiny was 100% Scottish (even the copy that was in Westminster Abbey all those years). The tapestry on the other hand was the work of England's conquerors, whether it was made in Canterbury or Bayeux, it matters not. It would have been commissioned by the victorious Normans and their power base was obviously Normandy. That's where the tapestry belongs.

As you know, the returning of the Stone was a pathetic attempt to win the Tories a few votes in 1997. It backfired just ever so slightly!:D


What's strange about English history, is that many scholars seem to have accepted the invasion as a positive, when in reality the native population were vitually enslaved and the English nobility were wiped out!






30

Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen,

25/06/2008 10:20:01
Chancers!....keep yer filthy hauns aff...its staying put...unless thirs a label oan the back sayin "Made in England" yir no gittin it.....

28..Good hols banjo boay?...whit did you pilfer fae yer hotel then?...you Fifers are renowned fir yer light fingeredness and inability tae leave a good towel behind ye......by the way...yer harem wis callin yer name in yer absence...askin me if ah knew o yer whereaboots!...ye better hook up wae thim or thill aw pine away....heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh...
31

Ned,

Morningside 25/06/2008 10:24:13
# 36.

A good question Fairfax. As a Scot who thinks Scotland and indeed the whole of the U.K. is a great place to live ,I have to be consistent with my post and although I wold rather see it in Edinburgh Castle I accept that it is still a very good place for it to be.

Please understand I am giving you an honest answer to your tricky question.
32

AJ Fife,

25/06/2008 10:30:22
#38,

Hoi Canky, long time no speak. I've already fettled the harem, nae problems there!

Unlike the English imperialists, when I visit a country, I leave it as I find it. Plus the luggage restriction with modern airliners, means ripping a hotel bathroom suite oot, is no longer an option!

How's life in Normandy?
33

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 10:32:06
Ned (39): Thanks for your honesty. I too dislike the idea of collections being dispersed for the sake of nationalism, and see no reason for the Bayeux Tapestry to leave Normandy.
34

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 10:43:05
AJ Fife (37): "The difference is - the Stone of Destiny was 100% Scottish (even the copy that was in Westminster Abbey all those years). The tapestry on the other hand was the work of England's conquerors"

If the Tapestry is Norman because England itself became a spoil of war, then I don't really see why the Stone didn't become English, being an English spoil of war. After all, your argument seems to imply that Hadrian's Wall is Italian, being a 100% Roman artefact!

"What's strange about English history, is that many scholars seem to have accepted the invasion as a positive,"

Many don't also. In fact there has been a strong English tradition viewing it as a negative also -- several of the lega arguments given against Charles I made explicit reference to pre-Conquest practice. To take a famous example, Tolkien is said to have viewed the Conquest almost as a personal affront: his fiction often avoids latinisms in its language. Tom Shippey is fascinating on this topic.

35

Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen,

25/06/2008 10:51:46
40...Life's braw cheers pal...beautiful weather...gardens in rude health and the oysters are comin oot o' ma ears...strangely enough...never seen the tapestry...must have a swatch next time ahm in that neck o' the woods....how wis your hols?
36

Schot,

25/06/2008 11:12:34
FairFax, for shame ! In Scottish law we have a crime called 'theft'.

The Stone of Scone was looted. The Bayeaux Tapestry was taken to Normandy by it's owner.

So we get the Stone back and you don't even get to borrow the tapestry until you understand the concept of 'theft'.

37

AJ Fife,

25/06/2008 11:30:54
Canky,

The holiday did the job. Perfect weather, but it's back tae the usual torrent o' rain here in Fife. A envy yer continental lifestyle and climate.

You should hae a swatch o' the tapestry, some very earthy bits that you'd really like!
38

AJ Fife,

25/06/2008 11:37:58
Fairfax,

You're stretching it a bit today, are you not? In fact, if you want the boulder(copied one) back, I'll have a word with Wee Eck!

Shippey sounds like he would be worth reading. You've got to admit the conquest is generally seen as a positive, but then, the establishment(pre 1066) was virtually wiped out.
39

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 25/06/2008 11:38:22
#44 Schot

Nay! The original stone came from the East Med., therefore it is not Scottish. Just because Norman Kings were crowned sitting on it in Scotland does not mean that it is Scottish by origin. A little piece of Palestine resting on the site of a Norman castle?


40

AJ Fife,

25/06/2008 11:50:59
#48,

The copy, which was in Westminster, is more than likely Scottish. Tests carried out 10 or so years ago, proved it couldn't have come from Palestine!

The original was well hidden before Edward got his filthy murdering hands on it! Only 3 individuals in Scotland know the true location of the original.
41

AJ Fife,

25/06/2008 12:14:03
BTO,

What a riotous thing to say......
42

G,

dundy 25/06/2008 12:15:21
Does it matter whether it was made in Normandy or England? At that time the two of them were part of the same country. England defeated in battle was a vassal state.
Moving it on this basis is a pathetic waste of time and could harm the piece for no good cause...
43

Aqwes,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 13:17:42
#14 Rulesbutnotrulers

Several factual errors there, I'm afraid. It doesn't do your argument any favours to include them. It would suit better to include the other half of some your truths, however.

Let's start at the beginning:
"Briton has existed for over 30 000 years! Britons lived here throughout the last ice age (much lower down of course as the sea level was well below present levels then thanks to the water being taken up in ice form). Caesar knew it as Briton."

First of all, Britain (not the spelling) was a geographical location, not a political entity 30,000 years ago. It wasn't a political entity until James VI&I decided it wold be a jolly good wheeze to make it one. Caeser (ten points for spelling Caesar correctly) may have known it as Briton, but what does that prove? Caesar wasn't an anthropologist, he was a military general. The people of Britain at the time of Caesar weren't one people, they were several.

"The Normans invaded Briton. Robert of Bruge (de Bruce) came from Flanders so Alba was also invaded by Normans."

Robert de Brus, not "de Bruce", did not come from "Bruge". In fact, there is no place called "Bruge". The place you're looking for is "Bruges", and even that's not right. Robert the Bruce didn't come from Bruges and he didn't come from Flanders. He came from Normandy, with the rest of the Normans (no, Normandy isn't part of Flanders or vice-versa). His surname, "de Brus", means "of Brieux", which is a town in what we would traditionally call Normandy.

Scotland was not invaded by the Normans. Robert the Bruce was born in Ayrshire, 200 hundred years after the Norman Invasion of England, and was as Scottish as a shoulder-chip. He may have spoken Norman French, but he also spoke Gaelic and was a member of the Scottish nobility. For him to be an invading force would require imgaination so flexible it would rival the body of a tapeworm.

"Carola Hicks mentioned a brilliant exact replica of the tapestry on show i
44

Aqwes,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 13:21:01
cntd

"Carola Hicks mentioned a brilliant exact replica of the tapestry on show in Reading. It is better displayed and identical to the one in France.

If we returned all artefacts to country of origin then the museums would be bare. Lewis chessmen would end up in Norway."

This final section could easily have stood on its own, and would have been more pointed if it wasn't prefaced by historical falsehoods and half-truths.
45

Schot,

25/06/2008 13:24:02
@48

I'm not talking about the original stone, I'm talking about the one in Edinburgh Castle. It is certainly Scottish even if it is 'F for Fake' Palestinian.

If I did know the whereabouts of a Palestinian rock of historical importance, I'd urge it's return to Palestine. I strongly disagree with Ned saying:

"Go to the British Museum , the Louvre , etc and you will get my point ( I hope ).Lets not get to carried away with selfish nationalism. All those works are universal and should have the best care for all generations."

I have been to both places and seen the amazing stuff there. I still think it should be returned to the nearest museum to point of it's origin - or in cases like the Elgin Marbles directly to site. This is not selfish nationalism - it is selfish nationalism to hoard other peoples treasures looted during our own imperial aggressions. All these works are universal, so why are only people close to Paris, London and New York able to see them ? The Louvre has an amazing Egyptian collection, yet how many Egyptians will ever be able to see it ?

The wests defence of archeological treasures is seen by the lack of guards at Iraqi museums during the pillaging there, the use of of heritage sites as military bases.
46

Vincent-W,

25/06/2008 14:47:24
Reason gets drowned in the ignorant rantings of so many posters. So many folk cannot grasp that Northern Europe and the British Isles did not always have the same political make up of today.

'Repatriation' (whatever that means) is not an issue, it is merely the opportunity to display the tapestry. Works of art and historical artifacts are often loaned for display.

However, having seen the tapestry on a number of occasions I would imagine the logistics to be nearly insurmountable.

By the way AJ Fife you knowledge of meteorology is sorely lacking - Fife is one of the driest parts of Scotland.

And Boy Wonder - I don't think you are qualified to home educate.
47

Ken S.,

Reading 25/06/2008 15:09:19
#45 bring them on,
"Away ye go and make your own."

We did. (See #15)

Stop trying to needle us!
48

overshot,

perth 25/06/2008 15:11:58
Dont forget the Book of Deer and the Rosetta Stone.
49

AJ Fife,

25/06/2008 15:12:52
Vince,

True, but it still p!sses down a lot! Dry is not a word to describe anywhere in Scotland. St Andrews gets the most sunshine(apparently), but it still chucks it doon on a frequent basis.....
50

Lundavra,

Fort William 25/06/2008 15:17:07
"Lewis Chessmen: The chessmen were discovered in 1831 in a sandbank at the head of the Bay of Uig on the west coast of Lewis. Today, 11 pieces are in the National Museum of Scotland, while 82 are in the British Museum in London. Last year, SNP politicians called for their return to where they were found."

I thought they wanted to them "returning" to an Edinburgh museum, not to "where they were found"?

51

Jardine,

25/06/2008 15:30:34
#53

Thank you. I couldn't have put it half as well.
52

Vincent-W,

25/06/2008 15:39:08
AJ - there are many more dry days than wet days in Fife. But then I can see you're probably a true Fifer.

You know the one about an optimist whose glass is half full and a pessimist whose glass is half empty, well give a Fifer a full glass, he'll look at it and tell you, "Aye, but it'll soon be empty."

Are you the sort of fellow, who after basking in the Pittenweem sun for a week, will cheerlessly incant that famous Fife phrase "Aye, but we'll pay for it."?
53

AJ Fife,

25/06/2008 15:42:09
Vince,

Aye, that's jist aboot right and dinny you forget it! :)
54

Vincent-W,

25/06/2008 15:43:51
There's been zero rainfall in Drumoig today!
55

Vincent-W,

25/06/2008 15:45:28
St Andrews and the Fife coast enjoy brighter, drier weather than the rest of Scotland and the UK.

Coastal Views: the Official Newsletter of the Fife Coastal Path has been looking into 30 years of records gathered by the Met Office, and reports the following:

‘Their data (based on Leuchars weather station), shows that the Fife Coast has 31% more sunshine hours than the Scottish average, and 14% than the UK average. The Fife Coast receives only 43% of the average Scottish rainfall, and 58% of the UK average. Despite being so far north, average maximum and minimum temperatures are almost exactly the UK average.’

For some of the best weather in Britain, St Andrews is the place to be.

56

AJ Fife,

25/06/2008 15:56:20
Very good Vince. Does the W stand for weatherman or something else less complimentary?

Do you stay in wan o' those big American style hooses in Drumoig, or do you cut the gress on the gowf coorse?

Do you reckon the St Andrews stats are applicable to central and west Fife? Also, you should remember the Met office at RAF Leuchars is aye in soapy bubble wi' the RAF for getting it wrang!
57

AJ Fife,

25/06/2008 15:58:44
Vince,

No rainfall in Drumoig today?????? It's chucking it doon....right now!
58

Joanna,

Cambs, England 25/06/2008 16:02:46
"It is an iconic document of English history and wouldn't it be amazing to have it shown in England where there is a very good chance it was made, and wouldn't that inspire people to get involved in medieval history? The crowds would come flocking."

Sounds like a good thing to me - he's not asking to keep it, just wants to put it on display. What's the problem? Works of art from the UK are loaned to foreign museums all the time.

Anyway its not just the British Museum which has on display the artefacts of other countries. There's a fair few works of art hanging in the Lourve which could be returned to their rightful owners, if we're going down that route, the Mona Lisa for one, Da Vinci wasn't French.

AJ - I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bit of the tapestry hanging in your house. Surprised they let you in to see it at all.
59

Vincent-W,

25/06/2008 16:03:07
AJ - localised showers.
60

AJ Fife,

25/06/2008 16:06:23
Joanna,

Shhhhhhhhh....it's the bit where Harold gets it in the eye!
61

Joanna,

Cambs, England 25/06/2008 16:10:29
Poor old Harold - what a thing to be remembered for, what price immortality?

AJ - they didn't strip search you then? They'll learn!
62

AJ Fife,

25/06/2008 16:13:01
#71,

Hold on there Joanna, they named a fitba stadium after his famous victory against the Danish team!
63

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 16:31:38
AJ Fife (47): "You're stretching it a bit today, are you not? In fact, if you want the boulder(copied one) back . . ."

Not at all: it's purely the logical point that interests me.

"Shippey sounds like he would be worth reading. You've got to admit the conquest is generally seen as a positive"

Yes. "The Road to Middle-Earth" is particularly good. Of course, you're correct that it's generally viewed as a positive event, but not less so than was once the case.
64

AJ Fife,

25/06/2008 16:35:15
Fairfax,

We're virtually in agreement, unless you want to argue about the average rainfall in Bayeux! :)
65

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 16:53:07
G (52): "At that time the two of them were part of the same country. England defeated in battle was a vassal state."

As I recall, Edward I's opinion of Scotland was that it was a vassal state of England. We're therefore back to a slightly different version of my earlier point: why does your argument not imply that the Stone of Scone should have remained in Westminster?

To give a non-British example, your argument is that the Tapestry's transfer is valid because England was, at the time, a Norman vassal state. However, at the time of the acquisition of the Elgin marbles, Greece was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. Would you therefore argue that Elgin's transaction was lawful, and that there is no requirement to return the Elgin marbles?
66

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 16:56:49
Schot (55): "I still think it should be returned to the nearest museum to point of it's origin - or in cases like the Elgin Marbles directly to site."

That's not, however, consistent with your earlier view that the Bayeux Tapestry was the property of William I. After all, if William I derived legal title of the Tapestry because of his conquest of England, then the Ottoman Empire obtained legal title of the Parthenon when they conquered the Byzantine Empire. This implies that Elgin's transaction with the Ottomans was lawful in your view.
67

Joanna,

Cambs, England 25/06/2008 17:03:38
Fairfax, 75 and 76

Surely, you've learned by now that its one law for England and another for Scotland and the rest of the world.

We're the baddies!
68

wherthefahkowee ,

Far side of the moon 25/06/2008 17:06:03

The French would send a forgery and then claim compensation from the EU.
69

Truely English,

25/06/2008 18:01:46
I can't understand why there is always this fuss about Scottish versus English from the Scots as we are all one nation.
Its not as if the Scots are barred from the British Museum any more than a person from Derbyshire would be or from Edinburgh Castle.

The tapestry is part of English and British History and Scottish History as well, so why not just accept that it would be good for us all that this article came to England even for a short period of time. So what is so wrong with that?
70

Singlepoint,

Fife 25/06/2008 18:08:46
The tapestry is not a cartoon strip but a campaign medal and it does not matter who struck it or where. The fact remains that the consensus is that it was commissioned by the ‘Normans’ and in the end given to Bayeux where it therefore belongs.

The tapestry was arrived at from the first violence and destruction engaged in by very courageous and tough warriors but today it is desired by those who if they do not get it will scream and scream and scream till they’re sick. If the latter want the tapestry so bad then let them get dressed as of old and go try take it.

As regards the BBC; no rational person cares what it says or thinks.

As regards the tapestry; it is something like 70 metres long and fragile and cannot be moved: behave yourselves.
71

uno.who,

Livingston 25/06/2008 18:13:41
What the hell difference does it make where it was made ? Unless you can prove, irrefutably and beyond reasonable doubt, that it was stolen (unlikely) then it BELONGS to its current keepers.

If I were French I wouldn't let anyone in a foreign country, with some dodgy "interest", borrow something in my possession !
72

uno.who,

Livingston 25/06/2008 18:14:36
#80 Well said Singlepoint !
73

tyson,

Indian Territory 25/06/2008 18:23:36
They had best be careful what they ask for. If the sassenachs "repatriate" all of the stuff they have looted, the British Museum will be half empty.
Let's start with the Elgin Marbles.
74

Scotian,

Isle Royale 25/06/2008 18:33:36
#14
The ancient name of the whole island of Britain was ALB. The Romans gave you Alba for the North. This name was adopted by the Gaels, who originally called their kingdom, Dal Riatta. Brythons, populated Alb, North western Gaul and Northwestern Iberia, before the Romans coined our island Britannia.

Dinna fash yersel'
75

wherthefahkowee ,

Far side of the moon 25/06/2008 18:36:26
82 - Hmmmm. Surely, considering the subject matter, the poster at 80 should be called needlepoint or doublestitch.
76

Joanna,

Cambs, England 25/06/2008 18:36:33
"Let's start with the Elgin Marbles"


Which of course were 'looted' by a Scot. Perhaps Scotland should make due recompense for that crime.
77

Joanna,

Cambs, England 25/06/2008 18:44:20
Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine (Born July 20, 1766, Broomhall, Fife, Scotland died November 14, 1841, Paris), acquired the Parthenon Marbles which were then called 'Elgin' after him.

The British Government bought them from Elgin but they were not responsible for taking them in the first place.

78

Joanna,

25/06/2008 18:59:43
uno.who,Livingston 25/06/2008 18:13:41
"What the hell difference does it make where it was made ? Unless you can prove, irrefutably and beyond reasonable doubt, that it was stolen (unlikely) then it BELONGS to its current keepers.

If I were French I wouldn't let anyone in a foreign country, with some dodgy "interest", borrow something in my possession !"


I quite agree, the same, of course applies to the Elgin Marbles and the Lewis chessmen wouldn't you say?
79

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 19:07:12
Singlepoint (80): "The fact remains that the consensus is that it was commissioned by the ‘Normans’ and in the end given to Bayeux where it therefore belongs."

I agree. However, the historians referred to believe it to be of English workmanship, and have asked to display it on loan.

"it is desired by those who if they do not get it will scream and scream and scream till they’re sick."

In fact the only request has been for it to be displayed on loan.

"As regards the tapestry; it is something like 70 metres long and fragile and cannot be moved: behave yourselves."

It was moved by the French (from Normandy to Paris under Napoleon, to inspire conquest of England) and the Germans (during WWII, to inspire conquest of England). The Allies then repatriated it to France.
80

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 19:08:27
Joanna (77): "Surely, you've learned by now that its one law for England and another for Scotland"

It certainly seems that way!
81

Pilrig.,

Livingston 25/06/2008 19:13:20
14 - by Britons, you mean the Celts who spoke P-Celt, in other words the language that became Welsh, Cornish, Breton. They referred to themselves as the Cymru.
82

Joanna,

Cambs, England 25/06/2008 19:17:43
Singlepoint,Fife 25/06/2008 18:08:46
"The tapestry was arrived at from the first violence and destruction engaged in by very courageous and tough warriors but today it is desired by those who if they do not get it will scream and scream and scream till they’re sick. If the latter want the tapestry so bad then let them get dressed as of old and go try take it."


Very melodramatic and rather silly comment. However, the likelihood is that many of the people you are referring to are descended from the Conqueror and his 'tough warriors'. You grossly underestimate the huge impact the conquest had on England and Scotland as well. Within a few generations Norman blood coursed in the veins of people from both countries, including King Robert the Bruce of Scotland.
83

Pilrig.,

Livingston 25/06/2008 19:18:30
34 - in other words the imperialist looters know best and the indigenous lesser breeds can take a hike !
84

Pilrig.,

Livingston 25/06/2008 19:24:09
68 - Joanna, a large number of the artifacts on display in the Louvre (which I visited earlier this month btw), are loot acquired by Napoleon and the Grand Armee.
85

Joanna,

Cambs, England 25/06/2008 19:26:06
Yes that's true, Pilrig @ 94

But, do you think the French will return them? I doubt it somehow.
86

Pilrig.,

Livingston 25/06/2008 19:30:14
92 - Norman blood didn't course through the veins of the indigenous Celtic inhabitants of what we know call England, and more than Anglo-Saxon or Danish blood did. They were all aggressive power elite minorities, and tended to look down their noses at the conquered rather than inter-breed with them.
87

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 19:32:45
Pilrig (93): "34 - in other words the imperialist looters know best and the indigenous lesser breeds can take a hike !"

Alternatively, his view is that it's best not to open this can of worms. After all, the Elgin marbles were themselves the product of imperialism, having been built with the wealth accumulated by Athens from its League (originally formed for defence against Persia). Should we then assign part-ownership of the Parthenon to, say, Greece, Turkey, Macedonia and Albania, and possibly parts of southern Italy (these being modern countries containing tribute states of the League)?
88

Pilrig.,

Livingston 25/06/2008 19:33:02
95 - Joanna - They wont return them, which isn't to say they shouldn't. Anyway who needs the Mona Lisa (and the hordes who crowd round her), when the French have their own gems in the paintings of Poussin, Claude, David and Monet ?
89

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 19:34:35
Pilrig (96): "They were all aggressive power elite minorities, and tended to look down their noses at the conquered rather than inter-breed with them."

I suggest you try Stephen Oppenheimer's "The Origins of the British" before digging further:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origins-British-Genetic-Detective-Story/dp/1845294823/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214419032&sr=8-1
90

wherthefahkowee ,

25/06/2008 19:34:58
96 - I thought the French (read Normans) weren't above breeding with everyone and anything.

"Combined witheir Latinate voluptousness and Gallic laziness, the French would rather make love with their faces than make war". General Webb, British Army, 1757.
91

Pilrig.,

Livingston 25/06/2008 19:42:40
97 - The building of the Parthenon may have been the result of exploiting the neighbours but the fact remains it was built in Athens, and the Greek Government,( a modern democratic government unlike the depostic foreign Ottoman administration with whom Elgin dealt with) has requested the Parthenon Marbles back.

I tend to be of the attitude that artifacts, if possible, should be returned to their place of origin, rather than in some foreign museum. If people REALLY care and are genuinely interested in the artifacts, then they won't mind making the effort of going to the source to see them. The effort can only enhance the appreciation.
92

Pilrig.,

Livingston 25/06/2008 19:44:50
100 - The Norman ruling elite weren't so much French as they were 3rd or 4th generation Norsemen (and women).
93

wherthefahkowee ,

25/06/2008 19:48:44
100! 102 - You are splitting "heirs".
94

Pilrig.,

Livingston 25/06/2008 19:51:45
99 - I agree with Oppenheimer except that the people who came over in the post-Ice Age migrations from northern Spain, not necessarily Basques, were in effect Celt-Iberians (even if they never used that name themselves).
95

Joanna,

Cambs, England 25/06/2008 20:11:02
Pilrig,

The Conquest was nearly 1000 years ago - are you telling me that there is no Norman blood among the mixture of the British today. Not likely is it? (If we can't weed them out we'll breed them out).

Agree with you about the French art though, they have some fine examples of their own. As of course do we.
96

indune1,

Canada 25/06/2008 21:41:37

105 - Look at any of the great "houses" of England and you will see more than Norman blood flowing through.
97

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 21:42:24
Pilrig (101): "I tend to be of the attitude that artifacts, if possible, should be returned to their place of origin, rather than in some foreign museum"

This would denude North American museum collections of all medieval items, for example. To choose a case closer to home, the manuscript copy of Darwin's "Origin of Species" is in the National Library of Scotland. Would you really prefer it to be moved to, say, the Darwin collection in Cambridge?
98

indune1,

Canada 25/06/2008 21:46:25

By the way - 100 - wherthefahkowee - what a great moniker! P*ssed myself laughing. Brought some levity to "oh serious" thread.

As one poster said earlier the whole story revolves around one so-called expert's opinion.

Get over it. Why a nation would want a mouldy, old piece of tapestry celebrating its invasion and subjugation is beyond me.

However, it is still quite a work of art.
99

La Veuve Joyeuse,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 21:47:03
If the tapestry was made in England but was mend to be in Bayeux in France why should it be returned to Britain ???
The English should be proud that the French appreciated their work !!!!
When you buy something abroad do you have to return it because it wéas made abroad!!!! Very strange reaction....
"In recent decades, however, scholarly analysis indicates that it was commissioned by Bishop Odo, William's half-brother, possibly to display in Bayeux Cathedral at the time of the building's completion in 1077."
100

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 22:01:02
La veuve Joyeuse (109): "When you buy something abroad do you have to return it because it wéas made abroad!!!! Very strange reaction...."

Pilrig's point, and that of many others, is that this is precisely the case for the Elgin marbles, for examples. Presumably you are equally surprised by the wish of many modern Greeks that these be returned to Greece.
101

indune1,

25/06/2008 22:10:27
110 - By inference, do you mean to say that ancient Greeks wouldn't give a t*ss? (Apologies, but Scotsman word Nazis would not permit the full spelling of the latter. Sheesh!)
102

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 22:29:52
indune1 (111): "By inference, do you mean to say that ancient Greeks wouldn't give a t*ss?"

Which ancient Greeks? I suspect the Spartans, together with much of the former Athenian League, wouldn't have cared much. However, my point was in reply to 109, who opined that it was very strange that items bought abroad should be returned.
103

Pilrig.,

Livingston 25/06/2008 22:47:54
105 - I'm not denying that there is Norman blood in British people. What I'm saying is (and this has been proven by DNA research) that the Norman and Anglo-Saxon input into these isles, is genetically minimal but culturally, linguistically and politically huge.
104

indune1,

Canada 25/06/2008 22:50:01

"Which ancient Greeks"? Spartans did not, and never did, consider themselves as Greeks. Don't cloud the issue.



105

Pilrig.,

Livingston 25/06/2008 22:50:35
107 - yes, but there's no reason why museums can't lend items to each other, if it's possible that is.
106

Schot,

25/06/2008 22:52:36
Fairfax.

The Stone of Scone was stolen.
The Elgin Marbles were stolen.
The "La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde" was purchased and shipped by it's owner, the then king of England, to it's present location.

And the fact you still can't acknowledge or even seem to understand the difference between theft and ownership is why the French can't risk lending you the tapestry. You'd just keep it and call it yours.
107

Pilrig.,

Livingston 25/06/2008 22:54:12
114 Homer ( or the character who became known as Homer) never referred to the Greeks as 'Greeks', they were 'Acheans'.
108

Pilrig.,

Livingston 25/06/2008 22:57:07
116 The Elgin/Parthenon Marbles were legitimately bought. But the sellers were a foreign occupying force.
109

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 23:03:36
indune (114): ""Which ancient Greeks"? Spartans did not, and never did, consider themselves as Greeks. Don't cloud the issue."

It was your term. Still, I cannot see how it is clouding the issue.
110

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 23:10:40
Schot (116): "The "La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde" was purchased and shipped by it's owner, the then king of England, to it's present location."

And, of course, William derived his rights over the Tapestry from his conquest.

"And the fact you still can't acknowledge or even seem to understand the difference between theft and ownership"

I see. I must say this is an interesting distinction you're making: conquer a country and you can take anything you want, keeping it legitimately forever; defeat a country, and the spoils of war are stolen property.

To pursue this line of argument, the Stone of Scone was indeed stolen by Edward I, but had Cromwell stated that the Stone had become English property, after conquering and absorbing Scotland into the Commonwealth in the early 1650s, then all would have been well. What's your view?

111

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 23:18:32
Pilrig (118): "116 The Elgin/Parthenon Marbles were legitimately bought. But the sellers were a foreign occupying force."

Surely that argument also applies to the Bayeux Tapestry, viewing the Norman French as a foreign occupying force. However, at the time of the Elgin purchase, the Ottomans had been the recognized state for almost 400 years. Would you then support Native Americans who refused to acknowledge the USA, say?
112

indune1,

Canada 25/06/2008 23:26:47
Fairfax - Your post, in part, stated: "Presumably you are equally surprised by the wish of many modern Greeks that these be returned to Greece."

My point was simply to ask if only "modern" Greeks wished the "Marbles" to be returned.

Also, please define or quantify "many". Thousands? Millions?

I agree with those that say let us just share these treasures and not talk of ownership. By doing do, barriers will fall and mutual understanding and trust will grow.

Enough of this academic circle jerk.
113

indune1,

Canada 25/06/2008 23:38:16

Fairfax - study Native American culture and you will hopefully understand that most tribes had no concept of permanent "ownership" or statehood. They held fiercely to tribal customs and identity. Yes, land sometimes defined their identity. They would have been incapable of recognizing - never mind acknowledging - the USA.

Most believed they were only custodians of everything - land, animals, material possessions - due to the power and ultimate ownership of the great Manitou.

For example, the Six Nations confederacy very much mirrored the concept of the Athenian league but only viewed territory as a temporary means to an end.

Most First Nations today are using the white man's legalisms to fight for their culture.
114

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 23:46:06
indune1 (122): "My point was simply to ask if only "modern" Greeks wished the "Marbles" to be returned."

Specifically, you asked "do you mean to say that ancient Greeks wouldn't give a t*ss?" It seems to be that you began the circle jerk by introducing this point. You then continued the onanistic rites by pointing out that "Greek" was not a term that should be applied to the Spartans. Whilst entirely true at the time, I find it difficult to believe that even the most obtuse classicist would object to the modern description of the Spartans as Greek, minor abuse that it might be.

"I agree with those that say let us just share these treasures and not talk of ownership."

I take the Hobbesian view: ownership always raises its head. However, presumably you would therefore suggest that England and Scotland share the Stone of Scone, not talking of ownership.

115

Fairfax,

25/06/2008 23:53:50
indune1 (123): "Most First Nations today are using the white man's legalisms to fight for their culture."

For that reason, given their often adroit use of the USA's legal system, it is now legitimate to ask their opinion of the USA's (or Canada's) title to the land. In my original post, to which you refer, I was responding to Pilrig's suggestion that the Ottomans, in the early 1800s, still counted as an occupying force in Greece, despite their near 400 year tenure. Logically, Pilrig presumably believes that the USA and Canada are occupying forces also. I suggest you direct further questions to him, since he queries the very legal basis of your state.


116

indune1,

Canada 25/06/2008 23:59:55

"Whilst entirely true at the time, I find it difficult to believe that even the most obtuse classicist would object to the modern description of the Spartans as Greek, minor abuse that it might be."

Minor abuse? LOL! Any so-called classicist - most who are, by nature, not obtuse - who would not seriously object to any "modern" description of the Spartans as Greek is a fraud.

Hobessian view? I, my friend, take a rather more practical, realistic view: you don't own anything except the spiritual: anything else can be taken from you by the state - democratic or totalitarian.

As to the Stone of Scone, since it is for the time being a Union, why shouldn't Scotland and England share it?
117

Fairfax,

26/06/2008 00:06:49
indune1 (126): "Any so-called classicist - most who are, by nature, not obtuse - who would not seriously object to any "modern" description of the Spartans as Greek is a fraud"

I've yet to meet such classicists here in Cambridge. Perhaps they're more dogmatic in Canada.

"I, my friend, take a rather more practical, realistic view: you don't own anything except the spiritual:"

Good luck with that.

"As to the Stone of Scone, since it is for the time being a Union, why shouldn't Scotland and England share it?"

The Scots seem to think otherwise: as you will see from the above, they are very pleased that England has returned this spoil of war after some 700 years. Still, now you can explain to them why they don't really own it or, indeed, anything.
118

indune1,

Canada 26/06/2008 00:11:57

Fairfax/Pilrig - Since the First Nations had no concept of ownership (deed to lands), how could Europeans be seen as occupiers?

That said, the Six Nations Confederacy was one of the most aggressive land-grabbing of First Nations. Being largely an agrarian society, they coveted the lands of other tribes. Once the Six Nations had exhausted a certain territory, they would make war on the nearest tribe with the most arable land.

I need not direct any questions to Pilrig for I fully recognize his flawed argument and see no purpose in addressing it.



119

Fairfax,

26/06/2008 00:16:30
indune1 (128): "Fairfax/Pilrig - Since the First Nations had no concept of ownership (deed to lands), how could Europeans be seen as occupiers?"

You have misunderstood the logical point being made. No question is being asked of any Native Americans. Since Pilrig has stated that the Ottomans were an occupying force in Greece in the early 1800s, despite their 400 year tenure, I then asked him if he believed the USA was an occupying force, given its roughly equal tenure. Thus the question is being posed to Pilrig, not to the First Nations: their views are not relevant to this point.
120

indune1,

Canada 26/06/2008 00:21:49


"The Scots seem to think otherwise: as you will see from the above".

There you go again with sweeping generalizations. The Scots? Please define. Are they a separate race? A separate nation? Did so-called Scots at the time not openly support and play a role in the removal of the of the Stone?


As to the nature of classicists, I can't remember the more famous being insensitive or slow to understand.

Dogma is more usually the domain of the Kirk.
121

indune1,

Canada 26/06/2008 00:33:14

Fairfax- If a "nation" does not exist - be it Greece or a continent known as North America - then how can a more dominant force be labelled as "occupying". That is the logical point you have failed to recognise and understand - for the third time.

A collective of interests - North American Indians, Italian principalities or otherwise, may rise up in armed opposition to such a force. However, in the absence of a recognised state - a physical and symbolic entity - such conflict is simply an armed struggle of which a certain victor may turn an ideal into a reality - that being a state.

I have enjoyed the exchange. Good night.
122

Schot,

26/06/2008 00:44:09
"And, of course, William derived his rights over the Tapestry from his conquest....I see. I must say this is an interesting distinction you're making: conquer a country and you can take anything you want, keeping it legitimately forever; defeat a country, and the spoils of war are stolen property."

Listen, if you want to say one particular english monarch was illegitamate then where do you stop ? They were all bastards, still are.
]
The Norman William conquered England with ease. He made himself King of England and commissioned the tapestry to rub your faces in it. And it obviously still rankles with you, for you to compare that to later english thefts.

"To pursue this line of argument, the Stone of Scone was indeed stolen by Edward I, but had Cromwell stated that the Stone had become English property, after conquering and absorbing Scotland into the Commonwealth in the early 1650s, then all would have been well. What's your view?"

You may have swallowed us but you haven't digested us. As soon as you've sucked the last oil from our land then you will regurgitate us whle.

England is a nation of thieves. Your best culture is stolen. Your best ideas and language is stolen. That's my view.
123

indune1,

Canada 26/06/2008 00:53:24
Oh my! Isn't 132 posting the perfect example of a product from the Mel Gibson School of History.

The oil is not sucked from your land but from the North Sea.

England didn't swallow Scotland - your lords and masters willingly jumped down its throat.

William did not conquer England with ease (not that is agreed that such a state existed at the time. In fact, his northern allies had been roundly defeated at Stamford Bridge just days before the hotly contested battle at Hastings.

I would also contest that our best culture is borrowed and adapted.

You are quite right - your post represents your view. Such as it is.

a

; - the
124

Fairfax,

26/06/2008 01:13:57
indune1 (131): "If a "nation" does not exist - be it Greece or a continent known as North America - then how can a more dominant force be labelled as "occupying"."

No nation state is required to be in existence for a force to be described as occupying. The term simply implies that a force is in place. To give another example, the sentence "the British East India Company was occupying large parts of India in the early 19th century" is meaningful, despite the fact that no nation of India then existed.

125

Schot,

26/06/2008 01:25:38
Isn't 132 posting the perfect example of a product from the Mel Gibson School of History.


No, I'm of the school which ripped the nose of the statue of Mel Gibson at the Wallace monument on the 300th anniversary of the union. I'm of the school that recognises Scottish independence primarily means independence from the US of A, not just from English rule.

And yet many of my favourite people are american or english, so smearing me as a 'hater' isn't valid.
126

indune1,

Canada 26/06/2008 01:26:36
Fairfax - "No nation state is required to be in existence for a force to be described as occupying. The term simply implies that a force is in place".

Interesting comment. So if no state exists and no physical boundary or space is invaded, then your observation can be taken and accepted at its most and simplistic meaning: a more dominant force physically occupies a piece of territory. So what?

"To give another example, the sentence "the British East India Company was occupying large parts of India in the early 19th century" is meaningful, despite the fact that no nation of India then existed."

I would say it it is meaningless for the very fact that indeed no nation called India existed. The British had a strategy to create such a state through its physical dominance and maintain such a condition permanently. therefore to create a legitimate - according to its laws - a legitimate entity.

And speaking of India, I must attend to my Rogan Josh curry.

Good night and best regards.





ecommewhat Occupied Europe implies a force in place? Of course it does. But to say that Europeans were occupiers - somehow a temporary force in place is absurd.

.
127

Fairfax,

26/06/2008 01:26:37
Schot (132): "He made himself King of England and commissioned the tapestry to rub your faces in it. And it obviously still rankles with you, for you to compare that to later english thefts."

On the contrary, it's simply a logical point: I have no wish for the Tapestry to move from Bayeux.

"The Norman William conquered England with ease."

In fact it took several decades of repression to conquer England. In contrast, Cromwell achieved his conquest of Scotland in one year. Presumably you agree that Cromwell was therefore legitimate owner of the Stone, given that relatively easy conquest.

128

indune1,

Canada 26/06/2008 01:30:16
135 - I didn't smear. You did. You described some of your "favourite people" as a nation of thieves.

You can't hunt with the hounds and run with the foxes.


Make up your muddled mind or lay off the booze.
129

Schot,

26/06/2008 01:37:37
>On the contrary, it's simply a logical point: I have no wish for the Tapestry to move from Bayeux.

But you still dispute Scotlands right to possess the Stone of Scone ? And you still defend Englands right to the Elgin marbles ?

A simple yes/no would hlp me clarify you as either a charming sop or a more nefarious designation.



"The Norman William conquered England with ease."

In fact it took several decades of repression to conquer England. In contrast, Cromwell achieved his conquest of Scotland in one year. Presumably you agree that Cromwell was therefore legitimate owner of the Stone, given that relatively easy conquest.

As for that other bloke who impugned I'd been drinking...well, that is too impolite for anyone who had ever been to Scotland or Canada.
130

Inverie,

Toronto & Fife 26/06/2008 01:44:25
Does that mean that Norway gets Orkney & Shetland (and the offshore oil) along with the Chess set?
131

indune1,

Canada 26/06/2008 01:47:05

I implied and, by intent, meant to impugn your reputation.

Your 139 posting I believe proves my point. This is not pretty. Go to bed or lay of the keyboard.

Have a good sleep my friend and remember that there are thieves in every nation.
132

indune1,

Canada 26/06/2008 01:48:43

Knowing Norway, it would opt for the chess set!!
133

Schot,

26/06/2008 02:03:25
"Have a good sleep my friend and remember that there are thieves in every nation."

Ta for the patronising. There are indeed thieves in every nation. The most success thiving nations became empires. And there was no greater empire than the English Empire. When I call the English a nation of thieves, it is out of respect for your sheer audacity.

The Elgin Marbles ? Either blame that on Scotland, in which case Scotland would be happy to return, or claim that as English booty. But you are a pacel of rogues in a nation and your museums prove that.
134

indune1,

Canada 26/06/2008 02:09:05

No patronising but sincere wishes.

As to a parcel of rogues; look no further to the Bard himself as to origins of that sentiment and also pay a visit or two to your own museums and you will witness the so-called ill-gotten gains of Scottish participation in what you see as imperialism.

I don't think you will qualify for a refund on your ticket.

Cheers!
135

Schot,

26/06/2008 02:19:01
I have said from the start I would prefer if all this loot was returned. I realise that Scotlands museums profited greatly from English imperialism, due to our compliance to the English, but Scots are your empires cannon-fodder too.

I have to ask though, when you say 'the bard' do you expect to be understood to mean Shakespeare ? Because my country recognises many bards.
136

indune1,

Canada 26/06/2008 02:26:48

Only one bard in my books - and I toast his memory every 25th of January - and I have been even known to pipe the haggis in for it's doin'.
137

Schot,

26/06/2008 03:11:37
Well here is a treat for you, the Ettrick shepherd:

I hae lost my love, an' I dinnae ken how
I hae lost my love, an' I carenae;
For laith will I be just to lie down an' dee,
And to sit down an' greet wad be bairnly.
But a screed o' ill-nature I canna weel help.
At having been guidit unfairly;
An' weel wad I like to gie women a skelp,
An' yerk their sweet haffits fu' yarely.

Oh! plague on the limmers, sae sly and demure,
As pawkie as deils wi' their smiling;
As fickle as winter, in sunshine and shower,
The hearts o' a' mankind beguiling;
As sour as December, as soothing as May:
To suit their ain ends, never doubt them;
Their ill faults I couldna tell ower in a day,
But their beauty's the warst thing about them.

Ay, that's what sets up the hail warld in a lowe;
Makes kingdoms to rise and expire;
Mans micht is nae mair than a flaught o' tow,
Opposed to a bleeze o' reid fire.
'Twas women at first made creation to bend,
And of nature's prime lord make the fellow;
An' 'tis her that will bring this ill warld to an end,
An' that will be seen an' heard tell o'.




I hae lost my love, an' I dinnae ken how
I hae lost my love, an' I carenae;
For laith will I be just to lie down an' dee,
And to sit down an' greet wad be bairnly.
But a screed o' ill-nature I canna weel help.
At having been guidit unfairly;
An' weel wad I like to gie women a skelp,
An' yerk their sweet haffits fu' yarely.

Oh! plague on the limmers, sae sly and demure,
As pawkie as deils wi' their smiling;
As fickle as winter, in sunshine and shower,
The hearts o' a' mankind beguiling;
As sour as December, as soothing as May:
To suit their ain ends, never doubt them;
Their ill faults I couldna tell ower in a day,
But their beauty's the warst thing about them.

Ay, that's what sets up the hail warld in a lowe;
Makes kingdoms to rise and expire;
Mans micht is nae mair than a flaught o' tow,
Opposed to a bleeze o' reid fire.
'Twas women at first made creation
138

Schot,

26/06/2008 03:12:49
Another bard:


We must be humble. We are so easily baffled by appearances
And do not realise that these stones are at one with the stars.
It makes no difference to them whether they are high or low,
Mountain peak or ocean floor, palace, or pigsty.

There are plenty of ruined buildings in the world but no ruined stones.
No visitor comes from the stars
But is the same as they are.

-Nay, it is easy to find a spontaneity here,
An adjustment to life, an ability
To ride it easily, akin to 'the buoyant
Prelapserian naturalness of a country girl
Laughing in the sun, not passion rent,
But sensing in the bound of her breasts vigours to come
Power to make her one with the stream of earth life round her'.
But not yet as my Muse is, with this ampler scope,
This more divine rhythm, wholly at one
With the earth, riding with it, as the stones do
And all soon must.

I am enamoured of the desert at last,
The abode of supreme serenity is necessarily a desert,
My disposition is towards spiritual issues
Made inhumanly clear; I will have nothing interposed
Between my sensitiveness and the barren but beautiful reality;
The deadly clarity of this 'seeing of a hungry man'
Only traces of a fever passing over my vision
Will vary, troubling it indeed, but troubling it only
In such a way that it becomes for a moment
Superhumanly, menacingly clear - the reflection
Of a brightness through a burning crystal.

A culture demands leisure and leisure presupposes
A self-determined rhythm of life; the capacity for solitude
Is its test; by that the desert knows us.
It is not a question of escaping from life
But the reverse - a question of acquiring the power
To exercise the loneliness, the independence, of stones.

I remember how Thoreau wrote:
'I have a commonplace book for facts
And another for poetry,
But I find it difficult always
To preserve the vague distinctions I had in mind
- for the most interesting and beautiful facts
Are so much the more poet
139

Schot,

A nation of many bards 26/06/2008 04:03:34
Maturity: Combining public altruism with private self-interest and unwitting hypocracy is quite a trick; but I think I have it now". - Ivor Cutler

I love Dick Gaughans verion of 'Now Westlin Winds', I think that is the best song ever. I have no time for doughballs who bad-mouth Burns. He was never our only bard though.
140

Pilrig.,

Livingston 26/06/2008 05:55:49
121 - yep !
141

Pilrig.,

Livingston 26/06/2008 05:59:25
132 - "great artists steal, minor artists borrow"

- T.S. Eliot.
142

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 09:38:27
Read all about it:

http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/
143

The Canadian,

27/06/2008 20:31:00
Why do English speakers use the Gaelic name Bard for the English word Poet. Not enough words in English is that it, or do they have difficulty finding an appropriate one.
144

Schot,

27/06/2008 23:01:01
I've been portrayed as 'anti-English' so I feel I must defend the English language here. The English language is superior to most European languages because it has learned to absorb all the foriegn words of all the foriegn peoples that they have conquered, or maascred in martial combat.

Gaellic seems to be learning that theiving trick though, as reported on telebhision.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.