LAST PAGE
The tapestry itself is slightly over 70 meters long by about half a meter wide. To be correct it is not technically a tapestry at all but an embroidery. It is unknown who commissioned it, or who did the actual work, but the current belief is that Bishop Odo, who at many points appears as the central figure, may have been responsible.(66) In France the tapestry is known as Matilda's tapestry. Matilda was William's wife. William was one of the few monarchs who at that time remained faithful to his wife throughout his complete reign, enjoying a large family. A number of stories indicate a strong bond between William and Matilda that was uncommon for a monarch in a period when women played a minor role in affairs of state. It was Matilda who is said to have commissioned William's ship, said to be called the Mora, for the Invasion as well as the tapestry. It is therefore possible that although there appears to be no written evidence of Matilda's involvement her influence was such that the tapestry has acquired her name.
Recent analysis of the embroidery style and the use of spelling in the Saxon manner, as well as spelling mistakes in the Latin, suggest that contrary to past belief it was probably made at Canterbury in Kent, England.(67) Canterbury was at that time one of Europe's leading embroidery schools and by way of circumstantial evidence Bishop Odo became Earl of Kent after the Conquest. The size and speed with which it was designed and completed indicates a considerable production process that could only have been completed at one of the major schools of embroidery.
The most remarkable element of the tapestry is its authentic traceable pedigree and the faithful cartoon like description of events. There are many mysterious elements that historians have found impossible to equate. I believe that it is far more faithful to the events of the time than has previously been given credit. In particular I believe that the tapestry is not only faithful to the types and style of dress and armour but is also faithful in building and land descriptions. Dr Marjorie Chibnall, in her critique confirms that this view is supported by at least three other eminent historians, including Arnold Taylor's paper (Vol XIV) on "Belrem", Derek Renn's (XVI) on "Burgheat and gonfanon" and Nicholas Brooke's general survey in the first volume. This is contrary to current thinking and shall demonstrate the accuracy of the text in relation to the landing site in order to justify this position.