# data[].attributes.body
(look at this old stuff I found)

# data[].attributes.body
Amy Pettifer and I look back on whatever the hell that was
2016 TAPPA TAPPA TAPPA
YEAR END LIST

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
THE TAPPA TAPPA TAPPA YEAR END LIST 2016 OH DEAR GOD WHY MAKE IT STOP EDITION MOST SOUL-SAVING PODCASTS A: The Adam Buxton Podcast, Theater People, Another Round, Laura Barton's Notes From A Musical...

# data[].attributes.body
The Tates with visiting parents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A scene from the Bayeux Tapestry depicting Bishop Odo rallying Duke William's army during the Battle of Hastings in 1066

The Bayeux Tapestry (, ; French: Tapisserie de Bayeux [tapisʁidəbajø] or La telle du conquest; Latin: Tapete Baiocense) is an embroidered cloth nearly 70 metres (230 feet) long and 50 centimetres (20 inches) tall that depicts the events leading up to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, led by William, Duke of Normandy challenging Harold II, King of England, and culminating in the Battle of Hastings. It is thought to date to the 11th century, within a few years of the battle. Now widely accepted to have been made in England perhaps as a gift for William, it tells the story from the point of view of the conquering Normans and for centuries has been preserved in Normandy.

According to Sylvette Lemagnen, conservator of the tapestry, in her 2005 book La Tapisserie de Bayeux:

The Bayeux tapestry is one of the supreme achievements of the Norman Romanesque .... Its survival almost intact over nine centuries is little short of miraculous ... Its exceptional length, the harmony and freshness of its colours, its exquisite workmanship, and the genius of its guiding spirit combine to make it endlessly fascinating.

The cloth consists of 58 scenes, many with Latin , embroidered on linen with coloured woollen yarns. It is likely that it was commissioned by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, William's maternal half-brother, and made for him in England in the 1070s. In 1729, the hanging was rediscovered by scholars at a time when it was being displayed annually in Bayeux Cathedral. The tapestry is now exhibited at the Musée de la Tapisserie de Bayeux in Bayeux, Normandy, France

The designs on the Bayeux Tapestry are embroidered rather than in a tapestry weave, so it does not meet narrower definitions of a tapestry. Nevertheless, it has always been referred to as a tapestry until recent years when the name "Bayeux Embroidery" has gained ground among certain art historians. It can be seen as a rare example of secular Romanesque art. Tapestries adorned both churches and wealthy houses in Medieval Western Europe, though at 0.5 by 68.38 m (1 ft 8 in by 224 ft 4 in), the Bayeux Tapestry is exceptionally large. Only the figures and decoration are embroidered, on a background left plain, which shows the subject very clearly and was necessary to cover large areas.

The earliest known written reference to the tapestry is a 1476 inventory of Bayeux Cathedral, but its origins have been the subject of much speculation and controversy.

French legend maintained the tapestry was commissioned and created by Queen Matilda, William the Conqueror's wife, and her ladies-in-waiting. Indeed, in France, it is occasionally known as La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde ("The Tapestry of Queen Matilda"). However, scholarly analysis in the 20th century concluded it was probably commissioned by William's half-brother, Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who, after the Conquest, also became Earl of Kent and, when William was absent in Normandy, regent of England.

The reasons for the Odo commission theory include:

1. three of the bishop's followers mentioned in the Domesday Book appear on the tapestry;

2. it was found in Bayeux Cathedral, built by Odo;

3. it may have been commissioned at the same time as the cathedral's construction in the 1070s, possibly completed by 1077 in time for display on the cathedral's dedication.

Assuming Odo commissioned the tapestry, it was probably designed and constructed in England by Anglo-Saxon artists (Odo's main power base being by then in Kent); the Latin text contains hints of Anglo-Saxon; other embroideries originate from England at this time; and the vegetable dyes can be found in cloth traditionally woven there. Howard B. Clarke has proposed that the designer of the tapestry (i.e. the individual responsible for its overall narrative and political argument) was Scolland, the abbot of St Augustine's Abbey in Canterbury, because of his previous position as head of the scriptorium at Mont Saint-Michel (famed for its illumination), his travels to Trajan's Column, and his connections to Wadard and Vital, two individuals identified in the tapestry. Alternatively, Christine Grainge has argued that the designer may have been Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury 1070-1089. The actual physical work of stitching was most probably undertaken by female needleworkers. Anglo-Saxon needlework of the more detailed type known as Opus Anglicanum was famous across Europe. It was perhaps commissioned for display in the hall of Odo's palace in Bayeux, and then bequeathed to the cathedral he had built, following the precedent of the documented but lost hanging of the Anglo-Saxon warrior Byrhtnoth, bequeathed by his widow to Ely Abbey.

Other theories exist. Carola Hicks has suggested the tapestry could possibly have been commissioned by Edith of Wessex, widow of Edward the Confessor and sister of Harold. Wolfgang Grape has challenged the consensus that the embroidery is Anglo-Saxon, distinguishing between Anglo-Saxon and other Northern European techniques; Medieval material authority Elizabeth Coatsworth contradicted this: "The attempt to distinguish Anglo-Saxon from other Northern European embroideries before 1100 on the grounds of technique cannot be upheld on the basis of present knowledge." George Beech suggests the tapestry was executed at the Abbey of Saint-Florent de Saumur in the Loire Valley and says the detailed depiction of the Breton campaign argues for additional sources in France. Andrew Bridgeford has suggested that the tapestry was actually of English design and encoded with secret messages meant to undermine Norman rule.

The first reference to the tapestry is from 1476 when it was listed in an inventory of the treasures of Bayeux Cathedral. It survived the sack of Bayeux by the Huguenots in 1562; and the next certain reference is from 1724. Antoine Lancelot sent a report to the Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres concerning a sketch he had received about a work concerning William the Conqueror. He had no idea where or what the original was, although he suggested it could have been a tapestry. Despite further enquiries he discovered no more.

The Benedictine scholar Bernard de Montfaucon made more successful investigations and found that the sketch was of a small portion of a tapestry preserved at Bayeux Cathedral. In 1729 and 1730 he published drawings and a detailed description of the complete work in the first two volumes of his Les Monuments de la Monarchie française. The drawings were by Antoine Benoît, one of the ablest draughtsmen of that time.

The tapestry was first briefly noted in English in 1746 by William Stukeley, in his Palaeographia Britannica. The first detailed account in English was written by Smart Lethieullier, who was living in Paris in 1732-3, and was acquainted with Lancelot and de Montfaucon: it was not published, however, until 1767, as an appendix to Andrew Ducarel's Anglo-Norman Antiquities.

During the French Revolution, in 1792, the tapestry was confiscated as public property to be used for covering military wagons. It was rescued from a wagon by a local lawyer who stored it in his house until the troubles were over, whereupon he sent it to the city administrators for safekeeping. After the Reign of Terror, the Fine Arts Commission, set up to safeguard national treasures in 1803, required it to be removed to Paris for display at the Musée Napoléon. When Napoleon abandoned his planned invasion of Britain the tapestry's propaganda value was lost and it was returned to Bayeux where the council displayed it on a winding apparatus of two cylinders. Despite scholars' concern that the tapestry was becoming damaged the council refused to return it to the cathedral.

Stothard / Basire engravings: scenes showing the Norman troops crossing the Channel and landing in Sussex

In 1816 the Society of Antiquaries of London commissioned its historical draughtsman, Charles Stothard, to visit Bayeux to make an accurate hand-coloured facsimile of the tapestry. His drawings were subsequently engraved by James Basire jr. and published by the Society in 1819-23. Stothard's images are still of value as a record of the tapestry as it was before 19th-century restoration.

By 1842 the tapestry was displayed in a special-purpose room in the Bibliothèque Publique. It required special storage in 1870 with the threatened invasion of Normandy in the Franco-Prussian War and again in 1939-1944 by the Ahnenerbe during the German occupation of France and the Normandy landings. On 27 June 1944 the Gestapo took the tapestry to the Louvre and on 18 August, three days before the Wehrmacht withdrew from Paris, Himmler sent a message (intercepted by Bletchley Park) ordering it to be taken to "a place of safety", thought to be Berlin. It was only on 22 August that the SS attempted to take possession of the tapestry, by which time the Louvre was again in French hands. After the liberation of Paris, on 25 August, the tapestry was again put on public display in the Louvre, and in 1945 it was returned to Bayeux, where it is exhibited at the Musée de la Tapisserie de Bayeux.

The inventory listing of 1476 shows that the tapestry was being hung annually in Bayeux Cathedral for the week of the Feast of St John the Baptist; and this was still the case in 1728, although by that time the purpose was merely to air the hanging, which was otherwise stored in a chest. Clearly, the work was being well cared for. In the eighteenth century, the artistry was regarded as crude or even barbarous-red and yellow multi-coloured horses upset some critics. It was thought to be unfinished because the linen was not covered with embroidery. However, its exhibition in the Louvre in 1797 caused a sensation, with Le Moniteur, which normally dealt with foreign affairs, reporting on it on its first two pages. It inspired a popular musical, La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde.[citation needed ] It was because the tapestry was regarded as an antiquity rather than a work of art that in 1804 it was returned to Bayeux, wherein 1823 one commentator, A. L. Léchaudé d'Anisy, reported that "there is a sort of purity in its primitive forms, especially considering the state of the arts in the eleventh century".

The tapestry was becoming a tourist attraction, with Robert Southey complaining of the need to queue to see the work. In the 1843 Hand-book for Travellers in France by John Murray III, a visit was included on "Recommended Route 26 (Caen to Cherbourg via Bayeux)", and this guidebook led John Ruskin to go there; he would describe the tapestry as "the most interesting thing in its way conceivable". Charles Dickens, however, was not impressed: "It is certainly the work of amateurs; very feeble amateurs at the beginning and very heedless some of them too."

During the Second World War Heinrich Himmler coveted the work, regarding it as "important for our glorious and cultured Germanic history".

In 2018, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that the Bayeux Tapestry would be loaned to Britain for public display. It had been expected to be exhibited at the British Museum in London in 2022, but a date has not yet been finalised. Assuming evidence the tapestry was made in Canterbury is correct, it will be the first time in 950 years it has left France.

Construction, design and technique

In common with other embroidered hangings of the early medieval period, this piece is conventionally referred to as a "tapestry", although it is not a "true" tapestry in which the design is woven into the cloth in tapestry weave; it is technically an embroidery, although it meets the traditional broader definition of "tapestry" as: "A textile fabric decorated with designs of ornament or pictorial subjects, painted, embroidered, or woven in colours, used for wall hangings, curtains, covers for seats, ..."

The Bayeux tapestry is embroidered in crewel ( wool yarn) on a tabby-woven linen ground 68.38 metres long and 0.5 metres wide (224.3 ft × 1.6 ft) and using two methods of stitching: outline or stem stitch for lettering and the outlines of figures, and couching or laid work for filling in figures. Nine linen panels, between fourteen and three metres in length, were sewn together after each was embroidered and the joins were disguised with subsequent embroidery. At the first join (start of scene 14) the borders do not line up properly but the technique was improved so that the later joins are practically invisible. The design involved a broad central zone with narrow decorative borders top and bottom. By inspecting the woollen threads behind the linen it is apparent all these aspects were embroidered together at a session and the awkward placing of the tituli is not due to them being added later. Later generations have patched the hanging in numerous places and some of the embroidery (especially in the final scene) has been reworked. The tapestry may well have maintained much of its original appearance-it now compares closely with a careful drawing made in 1730.

The end of the tapestry has been missing from time immemorial and the final titulus "Et fuga verterunt Angli" ("and the English left fleeing") is said to be "entirely spurious", added shortly before 1814 at a time of anti-English sentiment. Musset speculates the hanging was originally about 1.5 metres longer. At the last section still remaining the embroidery has been almost completely restored but this seems to have been done with at least some regard to the original stitching. The stylised tree is quite unlike any other tree in the tapestry. The start of the tapestry has also been restored but to a much lesser extent.

Norton has reviewed the various measurements of the length of the tapestry itself and of its nine individual linen panels. He has also attempted to estimate the size and architectural design of the 11th-century Bayeux Cathedral. He considers the tapestry would have fitted well if it had been hung along the south, west, and north arcades of the nave and that the scenes it depicts can be correlated with positions of the arcade bays in a way that would have been dramatically satisfying. He agrees with earlier speculation that a final panel is missing-one that shows William's coronation and which he thinks was some three metres long. Norton concludes that the tapestry was definitely designed to be hung in Bayeux Cathedral specifically; that it was designed to appeal to a Norman audience; and that it was probably designed for Bishop Odo so as to be displayed at the dedication of the cathedral in 1077 in the presence of William, Matilda, their sons, and Odo.

The main yarn colours are terracotta or russet, blue-green, dull gold, olive green, and blue, with small amounts of dark blue or black and sage green. Later repairs are worked in light yellow, orange, and light greens. Laid yarns are couched in place with yarn of the same or contrasting colour.

The tapestry's central zone contains most of the action, which sometimes overflows into the borders either for dramatic effect or because depictions would otherwise be very cramped (for example at Edward's death scene). Events take place in a long series of scenes which are generally separated by highly stylised trees. However, the trees are not placed consistently and the greatest scene shift, between Harold's audience with Edward after his return to England and Edward's burial scene, is not marked in any way at all.

The tituli are normally in the central zone but occasionally use the top border. The borders are otherwise mostly purely decorative and only sometimes does the decoration complement the action in the central zone. The decoration consists of birds, beasts, fish and scenes from fables, agriculture, and hunting. There are frequent oblique bands separating the vignettes. There are nude figures, some of corpses from battle, others of a ribald nature. A harrow, a newly invented implement, is depicted ( scene 10) and this is the earliest known depiction. The picture of Halley's Comet, which appears in the upper border ( scene 32), is the first known picture of this comet.

In 1724 a linen backing cloth was sewn on comparatively crudely and, in around the year 1800, large ink numerals were written on the backing which broadly enumerate each scene and which are still commonly used for reference.

In a series of pictures supported by a written commentary, the tapestry tells the story of the events of 1064-1066 culminating in the Battle of Hastings. The two main protagonists are Harold Godwinson, recently crowned King of England, leading the Anglo-Saxon English, and William, Duke of Normandy, leading a mainly Norman army, sometimes called the companions of William the Conqueror.

William was the illegitimate son of Robert the Magnificent, Duke of Normandy, and Herleva (or Arlette), a tanner's daughter. William became Duke of Normandy at the age of seven and was in control of Normandy by the age of nineteen. His half-brother was Bishop Odo of Bayeux.

King Edward the Confessor, king of England and about sixty years old at the time the tapestry starts its narration, had no children or any clear successor. Edward's mother, Emma of Normandy, was William's great aunt. At that time succession to the English throne was not by primogeniture but was decided jointly by the king and by an assembly of nobility, the Witenagemot.

Harold Godwinson, Earl of Wessex and the most powerful noble in England, was Edward's brother-in-law. The Norman chronicler William of Poitiers reported that Edward had previously determined that William would succeed him on the throne, and Harold had sworn to honour this, and yet later that Harold had claimed Edward, on his deathbed, had made him heir over William. However, other sources, such as Eadmer dispute this claim.

Tapestry fragments have been found in Scandinavia dating from the ninth century and it is thought that Norman and Anglo-Saxon embroidery developed from this sort of work. Examples are to be found in the grave goods of the Oseberg ship and the Överhogdal tapestries.

A monastic text from Ely, the Liber Eliensis, mentions a woven narrative wall-hanging commemorating the deeds of Byrhtnoth, killed in 991. Wall-hangings were common by the tenth century with English and Norman texts particularly commending the skill of Anglo-Saxon seamstresses. Mural paintings imitating draperies still exist in France and Italy and there are twelfth-century mentions of other wall-hangings in Normandy and France. A poem by Baldric of Dol might even describe the Bayeux Tapestry itself. The Bayeux Tapestry was therefore not unique at the time it was created: rather it is remarkable for being the sole surviving example of medieval narrative needlework.

The messengers with Guy I, Count of Ponthieu, with a portrayal of medieval agriculture in the border

The tapestry begins with a panel of Edward the Confessor sending Harold to Normandy. Later Norman sources say that the mission was for Harold to pledge loyalty to William but the tapestry does not suggest any specific purpose. By mischance, Harold arrives at the wrong location in France and is taken prisoner by Guy, Count of Ponthieu. After exchanges of messages borne by mounted messengers, Harold is released to William, who then invites Harold to accompany him on a campaign against Conan II, Duke of Brittany. On the way, just outside the monastery of Mont Saint-Michel, the army becomes mired in quicksand and Harold saves two Norman soldiers. William's army chases Conan from Dol de Bretagne to Rennes, and Conan finally surrenders at Dinan. William gives Harold arms and armour (possibly knighting him) and Harold takes an oath on saintly relics. Although the writing on the tapestry explicitly states an oath is taken there is no clue as to what is being promised.

Harold leaves for home and meets again with the old king Edward, who appears to be remonstrating with him. Harold is in a somewhat submissive posture and seems to be in disgrace. However, possibly deliberately, the king's intentions are not made clear. The scene then shifts by about one year to when Edward has become mortally ill and the tapestry strongly suggests that, on his deathbed, he bequeaths the crown to Harold. What is probably the coronation ceremony is attended by Stigand, whose position as Archbishop of Canterbury was controversial. Stigand is performing a liturgical function, possibly not the crowning itself. The tapestry labels the celebrant as "Stigant Archieps" (Stigand the archbishop) although by that time he had been excommunicated by the papacy who considered his appointment unlawful.

A star with a streaming tail, now known to be Halley's Comet, then appears. At this point, the lower border of the tapestry shows a fleet of ghost-like ships thus hinting at a future invasion. The news of Harold's coronation is taken to Normandy, whereupon we are told that William is ordering a fleet of ships to be built although it is Bishop Odo shown issuing the instructions. The invaders reach England, and land unopposed. William orders his men to find food, and a meal is cooked. A house is burnt by two soldiers, which may indicate some ravaging of the local countryside on the part of the invaders, and underneath, on a smaller scale than the arsonists, a woman holds her boy's hand as she asks for humanity. News is brought to William. The Normans build a motte and bailey at Hastings to defend their position. Messengers are sent between the two armies, and William makes a speech to prepare his army for battle.

The Battle of Hastings was fought on 14 October 1066 less than three weeks after the Battle of Stamford Bridge but the tapestry does not provide this context. The English fight on foot behind a shield wall, whilst the Normans are on horses. Two fallen knights are named as Leofwine and Gyrth, Harold's brothers, but both armies are shown fighting bravely. Bishop Odo brandishes his baton or mace and rallies the Norman troops in battle. To reassure his knights that he is still alive and well, William raises his helmet to show his face. The battle becomes very bloody with troops being slaughtered and dismembered corpses littering the ground. King Harold is killed. This scene can be interpreted in different ways, as the name "Harold" appears above a number of knights, making it difficult to identify which character is Harold, since one character appears with an arrow shot in his head under the name "Harold" while another character is slain by a sword underneath the words "was slain" . The final remaining scene shows unarmoured English troops fleeing the battlefield. The last part of the tapestry is missing; however, it is thought that the story contained only one additional scene.

The following is a list of known persons depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry:

are included in many scenes to point out names of people and places or to explain briefly the event being depicted. The text is in Latin but at times the style of words and spelling shows an English influence. A dark blue wool, almost black, is mostly used but towards the end of the tapestry other colours are used, sometimes for each word and other times for each letter. The complete text and English translation are displayed beside images of each scene at Bayeux Tapestry tituli.

Harold's death. Legend above: Harold rex interfectus est, "King Harold is killed"

Detail of arrow

Ubi unus clericus et Ælfgyva

The depiction of events on the tapestry has raised several questions which remain unsettled.

The identification of Harold II of England in the vignette depicting his death is disputed. Some recent historians disagree with the traditional view that Harold is the figure struck in the eye with an arrow, and that the arrow is a later 18th/19th century modification following a period of repair. Benoît's engraving of 1729, and Bernard de Montfaucon's engravings of the tapestry as it was in 1730, show a spear or lance in place of the arrow and no arrow fletchings. Further, needle holes in the linen suggest that something has been removed, or shortened, and fletchings added to form an arrow. A figure is slain with a sword in the subsequent plate, and the phrase above the figure refers to Harold's death ( interfectus est, "he is slain"). This would appear to be more consistent with the labeling used elsewhere in the work. It was common medieval iconography that a perjurer was to die with a weapon through the eye[citation needed ]. Therefore, the tapestry might be said to emphasize William's rightful claim to the throne by depicting Harold as an oath breaker. Whether he actually died in this way remains a mystery and is much debated.

There is a panel with what appears to be a clergyman touching or possibly striking a woman's face. No one knows the significance of this scene or the caption above it: ubi unus clericus et Ælfgyva ("where [or in which] a certain cleric and Ælfgyva"), where Ælfgyva is the Latinised spelling of Ælfgifu, a popular Anglo-Saxon woman's name (literally "elf-gift"). The use of the grapheme Æ shows familiarity with English spelling. There are two naked male figures in the border below this figure; the one directly below the figure is in a pose mirroring that of the cleric, squatting and displaying his genitalia (a scene that was frequently censored in historical reproductions). However, similar naked figures appear elsewhere in the lower border where there seems to be no connection at all with the main action. Harold had a younger sister named Ælfgifu (her name is spelt Alveva in the Domesday Book of 1086) who was possibly promised to William by Harold or even betrothed to him, but she died c. 1066, prior to the invasion. Ælfgifu was also the name of the mother of Sweyn Knutsson and Harold Harefoot, past kings of Denmark and England respectively, via Cnut the Great. It has been speculated that this scene, occurring after the meeting of Harold and William, is to remind the contemporary viewers of a scandal that occurred between Ælfgifu of Northampton and Emma of Normandy, Cnut's wives, that eventually led to the crowning of Edward the Confessor, child of Emma and her first husband, Æthelred the Unready.

At least two panels of the tapestry are missing, perhaps even another 6.4 m (7.0 yd) in total. This missing area may have depicted William's coronation as King of England. A poem by Baldric of Dol describes a tapestry on the walls of the personal apartments of Adela of Normandy, which is very similar to the Bayeux depiction. He describes the closing scene as the coronation of William in London.

The Bayeux Tapestry was probably commissioned by the House of Normandy and essentially depicts a Norman viewpoint. However, Harold is shown as brave, and his soldiers are not belittled. Throughout, William is described as dux ("duke"), whereas Harold, also called dux up to his coronation, is subsequently called rex ("king"). The fact that the narrative extensively covers Harold's activities in Normandy (in 1064) indicates that the intention was to show a strong relationship between that expedition and the Norman Conquest starting two years later. It is for this reason that the tapestry is generally seen by modern scholars as an apologia for the Norman Conquest.

Coronation of Harold, seemingly by Stigand

The tapestry's narration seems to place stress on Harold's oath to William, although its rationale is not made clear. Norman sources claim that the English succession was being pledged to William, but English sources give varied accounts. Today it is thought that the Norman sources are to be preferred. Both the tapestry and Norman sources name Stigand, the excommunicated archbishop of Canterbury, as the man who crowned Harold, possibly to discredit Harold's kingship; one English source suggests that he was crowned by Ealdred, archbishop of York, and favoured by the papacy, making Harold's position as legitimate king more secure. Contemporary scholarship has not decided the matter, although it is generally thought that Ealdred performed the coronation.

Although political propaganda or personal emphasis may have somewhat distorted the historical accuracy of the story, the Bayeux Tapestry constitutes a visual record of medieval arms, apparel, and other objects unlike any other artifact surviving from this period. There is no attempt at continuity between scenes, either in individuals' appearance or clothing. The knights carry shields, but show no system of hereditary coats of arms -the beginnings of modern heraldic structure were in place, but would not become standard until the middle of the 12th century. It has been noted that the warriors are depicted fighting with bare hands, while other sources indicate the general use of gloves in battle and hunt.

The American historian Stephen D. White, in a study of the tapestry, has "cautioned against reading it as an English or Norman story, showing how the animal fables visible in the borders may instead offer a commentary on the dangers of conflict and the futility of pursuing power".

A number of replicas of the Bayeux Tapestry have been created, in various media.

Through the collaboration of William Morris with textile manufacturer Thomas Wardle, Wardle's wife Elizabeth, who was an accomplished seamstress, embarked on creating a reproduction in 1885.[26] She organised some 37 women in her Leek School of Art Embroidery to collaborate working from a full-scale water-colour facsimile drawing provided by the South Kensington Museum. The full-size replica was finished in 1886 and is now exhibited in Reading Museum in Reading, Berkshire, England.[45][46] The naked figure in the original tapestry (in the border below the Ælfgyva figure) is depicted wearing a brief garment because the drawing which was worked from was similarly bowdlerised.[26] The replica was digitised and made available online in 2020.[47]

Ray Dugan of University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, completed a stitched replica in 1996.[48] Since its completion, it has been displayed in various museums and galleries in Canada and the United States.[49]

In 2000, a Danish association, Vikingegruppen Lindholm Høje, began making a replica of the Bayeux Tapestry using the original sewing techniques.[50] The replica was completed in June 2014 and went on permanent exhibition at Børglum Abbey in May 2015.[51]

Dr. E. D. Wheeler, former judge and former dean at Oglethorpe University, commissioned a hand-painted, full-size replica of the Bayeux Tapestry completed by Margaret ReVille and donated it to the University of West Georgia in Carrollton in 1994. In 2014, the replica was acquired by the University of North Georgia in Dahlonega.[52]

Sections of the 1066 Medieval Mosaic re-creation in New Zealand

An approximately half-scale mosaic version of the Bayeux Tapestry was formerly on display at Geraldine, New Zealand.[53] It was made up of 1.5 million 7 mm² pieces of spring steel-off-cuts from patterning disks of knitting machines-and was created by Michael Linton over a period of twenty years from 1979. The work was in 32 sections, and included a hypothetical reconstruction of the missing final section leading up to William the Conqueror's coronation at Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day, 1066.[54]

Jason Welch, a woodcarver from North Creake, Norfolk, England, created a replica of the tapestry between 2011 and 2014 in carved and painted wooden relief on 25 five-foot planks. He undertook the project to help cope with the grief of losing his 18-year-old son.[55]

Mia Hansson, from Skanör, Sweden, living in Wisbech, Isle of Ely, Cambridgeshire, started a reproduction on 13 July 2016.[56] As of May 2023 she had completed 40 metres, saying that she expected to finish in some 4 years. Hansson takes part of her replica out for talk and display events. In September 2020 she published Mia's Bayeux Tapestry Colouring Book, with hand-drawn images from the tapestry.[57][58]

Other modern artists have attempted to complete the work by creating panels depicting subsequent events up to William's coronation, though the actual content of the missing panels is unknown. In 1997, the embroidery artist Jan Messent completed a reconstruction showing William accepting the surrender of English nobles at Berkhamsted ( Beorcham), Hertfordshire, and his coronation. In early 2013, 416 residents of Alderney in the Channel Islands finished a continuation including William's coronation and the building of the Tower of London.

Street art in Bayeux referring to the Tapestry

Because it resembles a modern comic strip or movie storyboard, is widely recognised, and is so distinctive in its artistic style, the Bayeux Tapestry has frequently been used or reimagined in a variety of different popular culture contexts. George Wingfield Digby wrote in 1957:

It was designed to tell a story to a largely illiterate public; it is like a strip cartoon, racy, emphatic, colourful, with a good deal of blood and thunder and some ribaldry.

It has been cited by Scott McCloud in Understanding Comics as an example of early sequential-narrative art; and Bryan Talbot, a British comic book artist, has called it "the first known British comic strip".

It has inspired many modern political and other cartoons, including:

The tapestry has inspired modern embroideries, most notably and directly:

Other embroideries more loosely inspired by it include the Hastings Embroidery (1966), the New World Tapestry (1980-2000), the Quaker Tapestry (1981-89), the Great Tapestry of Scotland (2013), the Scottish Diaspora Tapestry (2014-15), Magna Carta (An Embroidery) (2014-15), and (in this case a woven tapestry with embroidered details) the Game of Thrones Tapestry (2017-19).

A number of films have used sections of the tapestry in their opening credits or closing titles, including Disney's Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Anthony Mann's , Franco Zeffirelli's , Frank Cassenti's La Chanson de Roland, Kevin Reynolds' Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and Richard Fleischer's The Vikings.

The design and embroidery of the tapestry form one of the narrative strands of Marta Morazzoni's 1988 novella The Invention of Truth.

The tapestry is referred to in Tony Kushner's play Angels in America. The apocryphal account of Queen Matilda's creation of the tapestry is used, perhaps in order to demonstrate that Louis, one of the main characters, holds himself to mythological standards.

In March 2022 the French specialist factual documentary Mysteries of the Bayeux Tapestry was broadcast by BBC Four. The programme explores both the history of the tapestry and the scientific and archaeological stories that lie within its embroidery. The original 90-minute documentary, written by Jonas Rosales, directed by Alexis de Favitski and produced by Antoine Bamas, was cut to 59 minutes for the BBC broadcast. The documentary includes the work of scientists from the Laboratoire d'Archéologie Moléculaire et Structurale (LAMS) at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, using a hyperspectral camera, measuring 215 different colours, to analyse the exact pigments used to produce the original colours for the dyed woollen threads, derived from madder, weld and indigo.

Backhouse, Janet; Turner, D. H.; Webster, Leslie, eds. (1984). The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, 966-1066. London: British Museum Publications. ISBN 0-7141-0532-5.

Bates, David; Barral i Altet, Xavier (2019). La Tapisserie de Bayeux. Paris: Citadelles & Mazenod.

Bernstein, David J. (1986). "The Mystery of Bayeux Tapestry" Weidenfeld and Nicolson ISBN 0-297-78928-7

Bloch, Howard (2006). A Needle in the Right Hand of God: The Norman Conquest of 1066 and the Making and Meaning of the Bayeux Tapestry. Random House ISBN 978-1-4000-6549-3

Bridgeford, Andrew (2005). 1066 : the hidden history in the Bayeux Tapestry Walker & Company ISBN 978-0-8027-7742-3

Brown, Shirley Ann (1988). The Bayeux Tapestry: History and Bibliography. Woodbridge: Boydell. ISBN 978-0-85115-509-8.

Burt, Richard (2007). "Loose Threads: Weaving Around Women in the Bayeux Tapestry and Cinema", in Medieval Film, ed. Anke Bernau and Bettina Bildhauer Manchester University Press

Burt, Richard (July 2007). "Re-embroidering the Bayeux Tapestry in Film and Media: The Flip Side of History in Opening and End Title Sequences". Exemplaria. 19 (2): 327-350. doi:10.1179/175330707X212895. S2CID 161901758.

Burt, Richard (2009). "Border Skirmishes: Weaving Around the Bayeux Tapestry and Cinema in Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves and El Cid." In Medieval Film. Ed. Anke Bernau and Bettina Bildhauer (Manchester: Manchester UP), pp. 158-18.

Burt, Richard (2008). Medieval and Early Modern Film and Media (New York and London: Palgrave Macmillan), xiv; 279 pp. Paperback edition, 2010.

Campbell, Miles Warren (1984). "Aelfgyva : The Mysterious Lady of the Bayeux Tapestry". Annales de Normandie. 34 (2): 127-145. doi:10.3406/annor.1984.5553.

Foys, Martin K. (2003). Bayeux Tapestry Digital Edition. Individual licence ed; CD-ROM. On-line version, 2013

Foys, Martin K., Overbey, Karen Eileen Overbey and Terkla, Dan (eds.) (2009) The Bayeux Tapestry: New Interpretations, Boydell and Brewer ISBN 978-1783271245.

Gibbs-Smith, C. H. (1973). The Bayeux Tapestry London; New York, Phaidon; Praeger

Hicks, Carola (2006). The Bayeux Tapestry: The Life Story of a Masterpiece. London: Chatto & Windus. ISBN 978-0-7011-7463-7.

Jones, Chas (2005). "The Yorkshire Preface to the Bayeux Tapestry" The Events of September 1066 - Depicted In a Community Tapestry, Writers Print Shop, first edition. ISBN 978-1-904623-37-3

Pastan, Elizabeth Carson, and Stephen White, with Kate Gilbert (2014). The Bayeux Tapestry and its Contexts: A Reassessment. Boydell Press ISBN 978-1-84383-941-5.

Rud, Mogens (1992). "The Bayeux Tapestry and the Battle of Hastings 1066", Christian Eilers Publishers, Copenhagen; contains full colour photographs and explanatory text

Werckmeister, Otto Karl (1976). "The Political Ideology of the Bayeux Tapestry." Studi Medievali, 3rd Series 17, no. 2: 535-95.

Wilson, David McKenzie (ed.) (2004). The Bayeux Tapestry: the Complete Tapestry in Color, Rev. ed. New York: Thames & Hudson ISBN 978-0-500-25122-5, 0-394-54793-4 (1985 ed.). LC NK3049.

Wissolik, Richard David (1982). "Duke William's Messengers: An 'Insoluble, Reverse-Order' Scene of the Bayeux Tapestry". Medium Ævum. 51 (1): 102-107. doi:10.2307/43632127. JSTOR 43632127. ProQuest 1293416903.

Wissolik, Richard David (March 1979). "The Monk Eadmer as Historian of the Norman Succession: Korner and Freeman Examined." American Benedictine Review, pp. 32-42.

Wissolik, Richard David. "The Saxon Statement: Code in the Bayeux Tapestry." Annuale Mediævale. 19 (September 1979), 69-97.

Wissolik, Richard David (1989). The Bayeux Tapestry. A Critical Annotated Bibliography with Cross References and Summary Outlines of Scholarship, 1729-1988, Greensburg: Eadmer Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Bayeux Tapestry (, ; French: Tapisserie de Bayeux [tapisʁidəbajø] or La telle du conquest; Latin: Tapete Baiocense) is an embroidered cloth nearly 70 metres (230 feet) long and 50 centimetres (20 inches) tall that depicts the events leading up to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, led by William, Duke of Normandy challenging Harold II, King of England, and culminating in the Battle of Hastings.

# data[].attributes.body
Teresa Margolles

# data[].attributes.body
The Turner Prize
@ Tate Britain

# data[].attributes.body
Anthea Hamilton

# data[].attributes.body
Helen Marten

# data[].attributes.body
Nam June Paik

# data[].attributes.body
John Heartfield

# data[].attributes.body
SIGN THIS PLS

# data[].attributes.body
24 January 2017
ART, CULTURE + DEMOCRACY
Anna Brownsted, Jessica Harby & Fath Davis Ruffins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Free Exchange On Tour takes free, open discussions into the community. Thrapston has a famous historical link to the family of George Washington, the first president of the USA.

# data[].attributes.body
Coming 1 January 2017 - Can You Hear Me?
Fermynwoods Contemporary Art Open Online Seven
Anna Brownsted & Jessica Harby

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Featuring: The Twelfth Player, The Free Exchange past, present and future, plus Open Online Seven - Can You Hear Me?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia is a geopolitical book by Aleksandr Dugin. The book has had a large influence within the Russian military, police, and foreign policy elites and it has been used as a textbook in the Academy of the General Staff of the Russian military.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
My fellow Americans, I have a favor to ask you.

Today is November 18, 2016. I want you to write about who you are, what you have experienced, and what you have endured.

Write down what you value; what standards you hold for yourself and for others. Write about your dreams for the future and your hopes for your children. Write about the struggle of your ancestors and how the hardship they overcame shaped the person you are today.

Write your biography, write down your memories. Because if you do not do it now, you may forget.

Write a list of things you would never do. Because it is possible that in the next year, you will do them.

Write a list of things you would never believe. Because it is possible that in the next year, you will either believe them or be forced to say you believe them.

A president-elect who wants to strip our country down for parts

It is increasingly clear, as Donald Trump appoints his cabinet of white supremacists and war-mongers, as as the that are supposed to protect us cower, as are shattered, that his ascendency to power is

This is an American authoritarian kleptocracy, backed by millionaire white nationalists both in the United States and abroad, meant to strip our country down for parts, often using ethnic violence to do so.

This is not a win for anyone except them. This is a moral loss and a dangerous threat for everyone in the United States, and by extension, everyone abroad.

I have been studying authoritarian states for over a decade, and I would never exaggerate the severity of this threat. Others who study or have lived in authoritarian states have come to the same conclusion as me.

And the plight is beyond party politics: it is not a matter of having a president-elect whom many dislike, but having a president-elect whose explicit goal is to destroy the nation.

None of us deserves what's coming

I am writing this not for those who oppose him, but for those who support him, because Trump and his backers are going to hurt you too.

I live in Missouri, now a bright red state, alongside you. I have faced the same economic misery as you, struggling to stay afloat since the recession, which never ended though many falsely claimed it did. I have the same anxiety over crime and racial tension and corrupt leadership as you. I am an independent, not a Democrat or a Republican, because I am as disappointed in political parties as you.

I am writing down my own good memories, and some of them are with you. I have walked beside you in our state parks, along our flowing rivers, and in our cities and small towns. I have talked and laughed with you in St. Louis, in Cape Girardeau, in Hannibal, in the Ozarks, and in the devastated rural areas in between, while surrounded by your signs and hats proclaiming support for Donald Trump. You do not deserve what is going to happen to you, and I do not deserve what is going to happen to me, because there is absolutely no one in the world who deserves what may be coming.

He told us his plans all along, though most chose to downplay or deny them

You can look to the president-elect himself for a vision of what is to come. He has told you his plans all along, though most chose to downplay or deny them. You can even look back to before his candidacy, when in February 2014, he went on Fox News to defend Russia. Why a reality TV host was on Fox News defending Russia is its own story, but about his desired outcome for the United States:
"You know what solves it? When the economy crashes, when the country goes to total hell and everything is a disaster. Then you'll have a [chuckles], you know, you'll have riots to go back to where we used to be when we were great."
This is what "Make America Great Again" means to Donald Trump. It is how he has operated his businesses, taking advantage of economic disasters like the for personal gain. It is why, during a long and painful recession, he made "You're fired" a national catchphrase, because he understands that sometimes it feels good to know that the person getting fired, for once, is not you. He said he could and people would still vote for him, and he said he could "by the pussy" because "When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

The system is rigged in his favor

He is right about that last part. No one holds Trump accountable, because he is exactly what he claimed to be railing against: an elite billionaire with no concern for the average person, a kleptocrat who enjoys taunting people less powerful than him with threats. When you have that kind of money, which Trump was given in birth and further gained through fraud, there are few limitations to the ways you can hurt people.

He is right that the system is rigged: it is rigged in his favor. And now it is rigged against you, unless we find a way to stop it.

I have been to the Trump rallies, not as a journalist, but as an observer in the crowd. I talked with you and you told me your hopes for the country under him, how you felt you were watching history being made, how you thought he was going to stick it to those who have been screwing us. I know the loyalty he inspires. I know it is unearned, because he lied.

Trump's vision for the United States is echoed in that of his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, a man who even the very right-wing Glenn Beck describes as a dangerous, sociopathic racist. In 2016, a reporter from the Daily Beast recalled this
"I'm a Leninist," Bannon proudly proclaimed. Shocked, I asked him what he meant. "Lenin," he answered, "wanted to destroy the state, and that's my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today's establishment."
The days of free speech may soon end

This mirrors Trump's own goals of destroying the United States, and it mirrors the intentions of dictators everywhere, who see people as objects to be manipulated and discarded, and not as real human beings. I have seen dictatorships firsthand in the former Soviet Union. I have friends who were imprisoned for expressing even the slightest criticism of the state, friends who had their businesses shaken down by the government and were left bankrupt, and friends whose family members were murdered by state security services.

I have worked, often unpaid, as an expert witness in political asylum cases for people from authoritarian states, because I will do anything to help people in this terrible position. The brutality they have endured, the fear of the state that prevents them from making independent choices, is something difficult for American minds to fathom.

The mainstream media has promoted him ceaselessly and are now rationalizing and normalizing Trump's most extreme policies

We are a deeply flawed nation, and those who are minorities or poor have faced state-sanctioned cruelty as well as limited opportunities. But it is simply not the same as authoritarianism.

Though our speech is often challenged, we can still speak. We can debate each other and come up with ways to improve our country. We can scream at each other and mock each other and tell each other our political choices are terrible. You will miss those days, they may end soon.

You may be wondering why I am writing a letter to Americans in a Dutch news outlet. It is because I do not trust the US outlets to remain free, and believe that many are already compromised. The mainstream media who Trump proclaims to hate are actually his best friend. They have been all along, promoting him ceaselessly, and they are now rationalizing and normalizing his most extreme policies. Trump tells you to boycott CNN, but CNN's boss always had a framed Trump tweet on the wall.

For what it's worth, Trump supporters, I have always supported your boycott of CNN. But this common ground is grim.

Preparing to live like a nation of dissidents

It is possible that I will end up living like the dissidents who I defended from foreign dictatorships for so long. I will talk in coded terms, as I have started to do already. Did you think it was a coincidence that I published an article about a journalist who sought freedom for all and was killed by St. Louis mobs, right before the election? I will try to continue to publish in foreign outlets. I will rearrange my life so I can fight this fight, because I am fighting for my country, and I never give up on my country or on my countrymen.

But I need you to fight too, in the way that matters most, which is inside. Authoritarianism is not merely a matter of state control, it is something that eats away at who you are. It makes you afraid, and fear can make you cruel. It compels you to conform and to comply and accept things that you would never accept, to do things you never thought you would do.

You do it because everyone else is doing it, because the institutions you trust are doing it and telling you to do it, because you are afraid of what will happen if you do not do it, and because the voice in your head crying out that something is wrong grows fainter and fainter until it dies.

We are heading into dark times, and you need to be your own light. Do not accept brutality and cruelty as normal even if it is sanctioned

That voice is your conscience, your morals, your individuality. No one can take that from you unless you let them. They can take everything from you in material terms - your house, your job, your ability to speak and move freely. They cannot take away who you truly are. They can never truly know you, and that is your power.

But to protect and wield this power, you need to know yourself - right now, before their methods permeate, before you accept the obscene and unthinkable as normal.

My heart breaks for the United States of America. It breaks for those who think they are my enemies as much as it does for my friends. You still have your freedom, so use it. There are many groups organizing for both resistance and subsistence, but we are heading into dark times, and you need to be your own light. Do not accept brutality and cruelty as normal even if it is sanctioned. Protect the vulnerable and encourage the afraid. If you are brave, stand up for others. If you cannot be brave - and it is often hard to be brave - be kind.

But most of all, never lose sight of who you are and what you value. If you find yourself doing something that feels questionable or wrong a few months or years from now, find that essay you wrote on who you are and read it. Ask if that version of yourself would have done the same thing.

And if the answer is no? Don't do it.

More from De Correspondent:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We're heading into dark times. This is how to be your own light in the Age of Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Having studied authoritarian states for over a decade, I would never exaggerate the severity of the threat we now face. But an American kleptocracy is exactly where president-elect Trump and his backers are taking us. That's why I have a favor to ask you, my fellow Americans.

# data[].attributes.body
So what will our new monster be?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Space invaders, irradiated monsters, and the zombie apocalypse.

Each generation is afraid of destroying itself. Your grandparents (or great-grandparents depending how young you are) feared The Great Depression would slowly but surely starve them all to death; the generation after that was certain nuclear annihilation was in its cards; and since 9/11, the largest rational fear (that is, not of monsters, aliens, or other such things) held by the majority of Americans centers on various iterations of terrorist threats.

Each generation also has a way of reflecting these fears through the media they consume. During the Depression no one could afford to go to the movies, but in the nuclear age you had alien invasion films like War of the Worlds and The Day the Earth Stood Still, and a slew of giant monster movies &dash; Godzilla, Them, The Black Scorpion, The Giant Gila Monster &dash; which featured antagonists who were products of either radiation or advanced technology and who had the ability to decimate cities, just like the A-bomb.

In the years since 9/11, horror and science-fiction films have frequently tackled the idea of an enemy far more insidious than giant monsters, rather ones who look like us, who can hide among us undetected, and who can &dash; in short &dash; blend into society while harboring destructive wills towards that same society, which they seek to destroy by implosion. And more often than not, this lattermost enemy manifests on-screen as zombies.
[watch] LIGHTS OUT: WHAT MAKES A MOVIE SCARY?
Think about it: currently we are up to our eyeballs in the living dead. They're in every other horror movie that's released, every third video game, and they've even started to spread across television. This modern boom began with Danny Boyle and Alex Garland's 28 Days Later, which was released in the U.S. a few months shy of the second anniversary of 9/11. As the following video from Jack Nugent at Now You See It discusses, this is not a coincidence. Starting with the sci-fi films of the 1950s and 60s, Nugent traces the way filmmakers have reflected societal fears over the decades, with his emphasis being on the zombie outbreak our culture has been hungrily consuming like fresh brains since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It's a startling look at the sometimes intentional, sometimes subconscious way we as a society generate entertainment from our greatest fears, both to alleviate some of the terror by turning them fantastic, and also to partially realize them, to take them out of imagination and see them for ourselves, albeit thankfully removed.

Americans love being scared &dash; horror box office numbers and The Walking Dead 's ratings prove that &dash; but only by terrors we can control. By reflecting our fears on-screen, we get that control and thus grant ourselves the peace of mind that the real world can't always offer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Are We Afraid Of? Film as a Reflection of Societal Fears

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Space invaders, irradiated monsters, and the zombie apocalypse. Each generation is afraid of destroying itself. Your grandparents (or great-grandparents depending how young you are) feared The Great Depression would slowly but surely starve them all to death; the generation after that was certain nuclear annihilation was in its cards; and since 9/11, the largest rational fear (that is, not of monsters, aliens, or other such things) held by the majority of Americans centers on various iterations of terrorist threats.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Are Two Sides of the Same Coin

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have swept the country off its feet. They've drawn massive crowds by the thousands to hear them speak. They've electrified the airwaves with bellicose statements and promises to defeat the establishment. They've created throngs of dedicated supporters who protect their names on social media and dream of the day that they take office. The pair - an eccentric Republican billionaire and a 30 year Congressman playing a Democrat - couldn't be more different at first glance. A brief look at the two would have most believing that Sanders champions liberal values while Trump espouses conservative ones. But there's a reason why so many voters are choosing between Trump and Sanders. The two are inexorably linked, their Presidential aspirations born from globalization and the economic angst of working class white voters.
Sanders and Trump are White Economic Populists
If you boil Trump and Sanders' main thesis down to its core, it is essentially the same: the working class white man is getting a raw deal. Trump and Sanders vow to restore the working class white man to his former glory, by returning what was "stolen" from him. Trump alleges that his wealth and place in society was stolen by minorities, particularly by Hispanic migrants. Sanders alleges that his wealth and place in society have been stolen by the nebulous billionaire class.

Both candidacies were created by globalization, a natural consequence of capitalism which has led to lower standards of living in the United States. Factory jobs have been shipped overseas, and American workers now find themselves competing with those in emerging economies who can do the same jobs for mere pennies. Sanders nor Trump admit the truth: that forces of globalization are beyond the President's control. Presidents cannot force corporations to stop outsourcing jobs for profit. And throwing up tariffs or other isolationist measures will simply create a trade war with other nations that will inevitably cost Americans even more jobs, potentially leading to an economic depression.

The truth is that globalization is here to stay, and as billions living in rural India, Africa, and China eventually come to the global market, the American standard of living will drop even further. This is an inconvenient truth that Sanders and Trump choose to ignore. Instead, they fuel their candidacies with the anger of those most displaced in society by globalization - angry white men. Trump and Sanders claim that they will right the wrongs of globalization and restore these men to their rightful standing in society.
Their Policy Platforms are Too Similar to Ignore
Too often, we think of candidates in sweeping terms. Trump is a conservative. Sanders is a liberal. Cruz is an evangelical. Clinton is an elitist. We need to peel back these labels to actually look at the policy platforms of each candidate. When we do that for Sanders and Trump, we find that the two aren't that different at all. In fact, they are shockingly similar.

Healthcare: Trump has been on record saying that he likes the healthcare mandate, and that he "doesn't want people dying in the streets." This is a massive break from conservative ideology. While Trump doesn't go quite as far as Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan, he clearly sees government having a significant role in providing healthcare to its citizens, a view Sanders agrees with.

Free-Trade: Both Trump and Sanders have railed against free trade. The pair have gone on about the perils of the Trans Pacific Partnership while decrying past deals such as NAFTA. Trump and Sanders' anti-trade argument is key to their (quite delusional, in my mind) idea that they can bring high paying factory jobs back to America.

Special Interests: Sanders has become notorious for his fight against special interests and big money in politics. But Donald Trump has also championed the same cause. Trump has called out Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush for being "bought" by special interests. Sanders all but asserts that Wall Street is running the Clinton campaign.

Foreign Policy: Both are running as purported isolationists who opposed the Iraq war, and would oppose future US intervention. Trump wants the US to leave NATO and largely abandon the Middle East. Sanders essentially has argued for much of the same. Sanders track record betrays him though: he's voted for or supported US intervention in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Kosovo, just to name a few.

Immigration: The pair appear to hold differing views on immigration. Trump wants to stop the practice entirely for Hispanics and Muslims, and build a wall. Bernie claims to want to open up the immigration process, especially for families who have had to live in the shadows for years. But a 2007 interview with anti-immigration champion Lou Dobbs revealed Sanders long held position that immigrants drive down wages for American workers. Sanders agreed with Dobbs' anti-immigration ideals and even went as far as to say that the entire thing is a ploy by billionaires to extract wealth from the working class.

Guns: Trump and Sanders are both pro-gun. Trump has repeatedly told us that he owns guns and about how he wants to protect the 2nd Sanders connections to the NRA are inescapable. The guns-rights group invested tens of thousands of dollars getting Bernie elected to Congress, and he has voted against the Brady bill multiple times. In a recent debate, he vehemently argued against holding gun manufacturers accountable for mass shootings.

Stances on Race
While both Sanders and Trump believe that the system is broken, they differ on the reasons why. Trump believes that the system is broken because minorities are "stealing jobs" from working class whites. Sanders believes that the system is broken because of billionaires. But what is particularly interesting is their stances on race, and how each stance shines through their respective platforms. Trump believes that the solutions to a broken system come through overt racism, such as building a wall and deporting Hispanics or denying Muslims entry into the country. Sanders believes that solutions to a broken system come through ignoring race altogether and simply focusing on class.

Overt racism, or ignoring race altogether, are "solutions" that are attractive to the white working class for a variety of reasons. It doesn't matter that neither solution will bring back high paying factory jobs. The solutions are palatable to their respective bases because blaming minorities or billionaires is easier than accepting the harsh truth: nobody can stop globalization, and it is going to get worse.

Trump's overt racism galvanizes his base while Sanders' "class over race" argument is part of the reason why black voters have overwhelmingly rejected him. Trump's stance on race will likely deny him the Presidency, as his coalition is too narrow for the general. Sanders' stance on race has already denied him the Democratic nomination for the same reason.
Independents Are Choosing Between Bernie and Trump
There's a reason why so many independents are choosing between Bernie and Trump, and why many Bernie supporters are considering voting for Trump in November. Their ideologies aren't all that different. Pundits have pointed to their shared outsider status as a reason for this phenomena. But in fact, the two share a common ideology, a shared view that working class whites are being harmed by government inaction. Both Bernie and Trump are buoyed by a large number of Independents. Generally, this demographic tends to be white, low income, and anti-establishment. Trump lost high income earners to Rubio early on in states like Virginia, while Bernie has lost high income earners and minorities across the board. Even if we shed the "independent" label, Trump and Sanders share a base. White working class voters feel that both are "authentic" outsiders who have their best interests at heart. Never mind that it is pretty tough to be an outsider when you've been in Congress for 30 years, or when you've been donating to political campaigns and getting real estate favors for decades.
Are Trump and Sanders Really The Future?
The candidacies of Trump and Sanders have political pundits simultaneously scared and intrigued. While their outrageous proclamations make for entertaining television, many party insiders on both sides of the aisle are worried about the post-Trump/Sanders future. Sanders' coalition likely remains loud but relatively isolated because of its lack of diversity. Trump's coalition could really destroy the Republican Party, even as early as the convention in Cleveland this summer.

The Sanders coalition, which enthusiastic, is too narrow to win nationally. The Sanders campaign punted on the entire southern region of the country because of its large black population - the equivalent of spotting a football team a 21 point lead before the game even starts. The Sanders "class over race" argument doesn't appeal to minorities (particularly black voters), and until the far left fundamentally changes this argument, they will continue to lose to establishment candidates simply because their coalition doesn't include black people. The Sanders coalition has a future as a loud but strategically limited wing of the party, unless they fundamentally change their ideology to incorporate minority interests. The Democratic establishment and the liberal wing of the party are both socially and economically liberal. The difference in liberal orthodoxy is only one of degrees, so the two groups will remain married.

The Trump coalition on other hand, is likely to actually destroy the Republican Party. While the liberal wing of the Democratic Party will likely remain attached to the establishment apparatus, the opposite is true of the GOP. That's because Trump isn't actually a conservative. He's a Dixiecrat, which a lot of poor whites were before the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. They like social programs and big government...just only for white people. Trump is fairly liberal on economics and hyper conservative on social issues, while the establishment wing of the GOP would like to be more of the opposite in order to placate big business interests and to appeal more to minorities. The wings are moving in the opposite direction and thus are likely to split, even as soon as the convention. A Trump nomination could prompt a third party run from a traditional conservative, which would create a schism in the party. Likewise, if the nomination is stolen from Trump on the convention floor, the same thing will effectively happen. The Republican Party is headed to a messy divorce, and Donald Trump is only the beginning of things to come.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Are Two Sides of the Same Coin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Are Two Sides of the Same Coin Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have swept the country off its feet. They've drawn massive crowds by the thousands to hear them speak. They've electrified the airwaves with bellicose statements and promises to defeat the establishment.

# data[].attributes.body
Built massive new shelving unit. Reorganised studio. Might as well be screaming THIS IS MY SPACE AND I HAVE CONTROL OVER IT.

# data[].attributes.body
Q: What is December for?
A: This.

# data[].attributes.body
Students from Northampton College were the first to vote on my nationality during a studio visit.