The 93 penises of the Bayeux Tapestry

Summary

History Extra Podcast: "The 93 Penises of the Bayeux Tapestry"

Release Date: April 24, 2025
Host: Dave Musgrove
Guest: Professor George Garnett, Oxford University

---

Introduction

In the intriguing episode titled "The 93 Penises of the Bayeux Tapestry," host Dave Musgrove engages in a captivating conversation with Professor George Garnett from Oxford University. The discussion revolves around Garnett's groundbreaking research on the Bayeux Tapestry, specifically focusing on the unusually high number of penises depicted within this medieval masterpiece.

Unveiling the Uncounted: The Penises of the Bayeux Tapestry

[02:00] Dave Musgrove:
“Historians have counted a lot of things in the Bayeux Tapestry—animals, ships, hands, plants. But nobody had counted the amount of penises within it until Oxford historian Professor George Garnett took on the challenge a while back.”

Professor Garnett explains that while various elements of the tapestry have been meticulously cataloged, the presence of penises, particularly in the bottom border, had been largely overlooked until his detailed study.

[03:35] Professor George Garnett:
“Lots of scholars have counted virtually everything else in the Bayeux Tapestry. Animals, horses, dogs, donkeys, ships, houses, churches. And one of the striking things about the tapestry is the number of penises which appear in the bottom border, which people had previously thought to be simply decorative.”

The Findings: A Detailed Tally

Professor Garnett reveals his comprehensive count, identifying a total of 93 penises within the tapestry:

• 88 are attached to horses, indicating stallions.
• 5 are associated with human figures.

[04:24] Professor George Garnett:
“Most of them are horse penises. There are a vast number of well-endowed horses, but curiously, the other animals... are not depicted with penises. So we've got, I think, 88 attached to horses and a further possibly 5 attached to men.”

Interpreting the Symbolism: Beyond Decoration

Delving deeper, Garnett theorizes that the exaggerated depiction of penises serves a symbolic purpose rather than mere decoration. He suggests that these representations are deliberate allusions to themes of masculinity, power, and perhaps even subversion of the Norman conquest narrative.

[08:37] Professor George Garnett:
“I think that the designer is only interested in three of those 88. I think the rest, the remaining 85, are just to demonstrate that the horses in question are stallions.”

Further exploring the human figures, Garnett identifies specific instances where male genitalia are prominently displayed, linking them to Aesop's Fables and suggesting underlying messages about deceit, betrayal, and shameful actions within the tapestry's narrative.

[12:46] Professor George Garnett:
“Steve White is correct, that these are alluding to particular fables of Aesop. And I don't think there's much point in me going into detail about what is being recounted in each of those fables. But obviously, sexual activity is involved in every case. It is sexual activity which involves deceit or shame.”

Symbolic Hierarchies: Horses and Their Significance

The conversation transitions to the role of horses in the tapestry, particularly focusing on key historical figures like Duke William and King Harold II. Garnett posits that the size of the horses' penises symbolizes their importance and prowess, subtly reinforcing William’s ultimate victory over Harold.

[09:54] Professor George Garnett:
“I think the designer is male. He depicts Earl Harold, ultimately King Harold II, who is defeated in the battle on a horse with a much larger penis than Odo of Bayeux's horse. And by far the biggest is that of Duke William, who will be victorious in the battle.”

[10:26] Professor George Garnett:
“Might we imagine, then, it's similar to a very rich man having a posh sports car. Is that the sort of line that we're seeing there?”

[10:33] Professor George Garnett:
“I suppose so, yes.”

Authorship and Intended Audience: Decoding the Designer's Intent

Garnett delves into the probable intentions behind the tapestry's design, suggesting that the inclusion of such explicit imagery was a sophisticated method of embedding critiques or alternative narratives about the Norman conquest.

[18:22] Professor George Garnett:
“You're seeing them everywhere. I must be careful.”

He hypothesizes that the designer was highly educated, likely male, and well-versed in literary traditions such as Aesop's Fables, which allowed for layered storytelling and subtle subversion of official histories.

[18:34] Professor George Garnett:
“I think whoever designed it was learned. I've said that I think he was almost certainly a man.”

Furthermore, Garnett discusses the probable English origin of the designer, citing the use of English spellings and the blending of Latin and English in captions, indicating a nuanced approach to the tapestry's creation.

[23:07] Professor George Garnett:
“I think whoever designed it almost certainly drafted the captions... it's being very carefully designed by somebody in order to convey a number of messages.”

Contemporary Reactions and Scholarly Impact

Professor Garnett shares the mixed reactions his research has garnered within academic circles and the broader public. While some colleagues found his work entertaining, others criticized it, leading to debates about the role of gender studies in historical research.

[29:04] Professor George Garnett:
“My academic colleagues were mostly very entertained that I had at last moved into gender history... The Daily Mail picked it up and in their comments somebody was sounding off about the fact that professors at Oxford are paid to do this sort of thing.”

Despite the backlash, Garnett stands firm in his interpretation, emphasizing the significance of uncovering hidden layers within historical artifacts.

Conclusion: Rethinking Historical Narratives

As the episode wraps up, Professor Garnett underscores the importance of his findings in challenging and enriching our understanding of the Bayeux Tapestry. By decoding the symbolic imagery, historians can gain a more nuanced perspective of the Norman conquest and the societal attitudes of the time.

[27:29] Professor George Garnett:
“It is the document written in code. And as I've already said, Phaedrus, the translator of Aesop, says that that's the point of Aesop's Fables in the first place, to convey messages obliquely.”

[28:45] Professor George Garnett:
“He wanted to convey his serious doubts about the standard story which was told to justify the Norman conquest of England... an equivocal, highly learned attempt to subvert official history.”

Dave Musgrove concludes the episode by directing listeners to further resources, including Professor Garnett's full article and additional content available exclusively to History Extra Plus subscribers.

---

Key Takeaways

• Innovative Research: Professor Garnett's study highlights the Bayeux Tapestry's complexity, revealing 93 penises as symbols rather than mere decorations.

• Symbolism and Power: The depiction of genitalia, especially on horses, serves as a metaphor for power dynamics and the legitimacy of the Norman conquest.

• Subversion of Narrative: The tapestry subtly challenges the official narrative of the conquest through encoded messages linked to Aesop's Fables.

• Academic Discourse: Garnett's findings spark discussions on gender history's role in interpreting medieval artifacts, emphasizing the evolving nature of historical scholarship.

• Broader Implications: This analysis encourages a reevaluation of historical documents, advocating for a more intricate understanding of the societal and cultural nuances of the past.

---

For those eager to delve deeper into the "93 penises of the Bayeux Tapestry" and explore more salacious aspects of early medieval history, exclusive bonus content is available for History Extra Plus subscribers. Visit HistoryExtra.com to subscribe and unlock six months of full access for just 99p.

Transcript

[Nordstrom Advertiser]

Nordstrom brings you the season's most wanted brands, Skims, Mango Free People and Princess polly, all under $100. From trending Sneakers to beauty must haves, we've curated the styles you'll wear on repeat this spring. Free shipping, free returns and in store pickup make it easier than ever. Shop now in stores [e-mail] going up prices keep going up these days it feels like being on an elevator that only goes up going up. But not at Metro. We're pushing the down button. Going down, we've lowered prices and give you a five year price guarantee on talk, text and data. Get one line of 5G data for $40 period. That's 20% lower only at Metro.

[Metro Advertiser]

Five year guarantee on eligible plans exclusion supplies. See website for details.

[Professor George Garnett]

Not available Fab Metro with T Mobile.

[Metro Advertiser]

In the past six months Tax applies Moms deserve our very best. Especially on Mother's Day. There's only one place I trust to deliver high quality mom approved rose bouquets 1-800-flowers.com this year, 1-800-flowers wants to make sure all the mothers in your life get the best with double the roses for free. When you buy one dozen, they'll double your bouquet to two dozen roses. To claim the double roses offer, go to 1-800-flowers.com Spotify. That's 1-800-flowers. Com Spotify, the official florist of Mother's Day.

[Lifelock Advertiser]

This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. Not everyone is careful with your personal information, which might explain why there's a victim of Identity theft every five seconds in the U.S. fortunately, there's LifeLock. Lifelock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity. If your identity is stolen, a US based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year by visiting lifelock.com podcast terms apply.

[Dave Musgrove]

Welcome to the History Extra Podcast. Fascinating historical conversations from the makers of BBC History Magazine. Historians have counted a lot of things in the Bayer tapestry. Animals, ships, hands, plants. But nobody had counted the amount of penises within it until Oxford historian Professor George Garnett took on the challenge a while back. He wrote an article on this subject for BBC History Magazine, and for this episode, Dave Musgrove invited George to reveal just how many penises he did find in the tapestry and explain why. This is in fact, serious research that helps us to better understand this vital account of the Norman conquest of 1066. And if you enjoy this episode, you can find a bonus episode delving into the real nitty gritty of Anglo Saxon Sex in your podcast feeds exclusively for History Extra plus subscribers, which is now available across most podcast platforms. If you aren't already, you can become a History Extra plus subscriber by clicking the link in the episode description. Subscribers to History Extra plus get ad free listening to all of History Extra's podcasts as well as early access and exclusives.

[Professor George Garnett]

Today, I'm very pleased to be joined by Professor George Garnett, professor of History here at Oxford University. George, welcome to the podcast. How are you?

I'm fine, thank you.

Good. Good to have you. Now, look, as I said, you're a professor of history at Oxford University. Can I ask you then, why did you count the penises in the biotapestry?

Well, lots of scholars have counted virtually everything else in the biotapestry. Animals, horses, dogs, donkey, ships, houses, churches. And one of the striking things about the tapestry is the number of penises which appear in the bottom border, which people had previously thought to be simply decorative. And I thought that's a curious form of decoration really, isn't it? Why are there five, probably five male bits of genitalia in the border of the tapestry?

It's an excellent question and we will now consider that. But before we do that, perhaps you could explain the full tally. What was the number of penises that you found overall?

Well, most of them are horse penises. There are a vast number of well endowed horses, but curiously, the other animals. There are lots of other types of animals in the tapestry, but they are not depicted with penises. And I have no explanation for why that is the case.

So we've got, I think 88 attached to horses and a further possibly 5 attached to men.

Yes.

Now before we dive into that more deeply, we should just for our listeners who aren't familiar with the biotapestry, could you just tell us what that document is materially and the story it's telling?

Well, the Bayer tapestry, confusingly is not a tapestry, it's an embroidery. And it was made, we can prove, probably before about 1083, so within less than 20 years of the Norman conquest of England in 1066. And it depicts the Conquest in very vibrant, dramatic form. It is both a source for the events of the conquest leading up to the conquest and the Battle of Hastings itself, and also an epic. And of course, one of the great surviving works of art from the Middle Ages in terms of art on cloth, textile art, it is by far the most splendid and largest surviving from the period. What survives of it is 230ft long. And obviously we don't know how much of the end is missing, but we know that quite a bit is missing because it's torn off at the end.

And for metric enthusiasts, that's about 70 metres, I think, and about half a metre high, you tell me. I think so. The way it's structured is it's got the sort of the middle frieze or register where kind of the narrative story is told, and it's got a border both above and below in which other.

Things happen, other things happen, which were thought until quite recently simply to be decorative. But a very accomplished American historian called Steve White proved, I think, that many of the images in the frieze at the bottom were specifically alluding to episodes in Aesop's Fables. Now, nobody in 11th century England or Normandy read Greek, at least so far as we know. What the designer was clearly drawing on was Phaedrus's first century AD Latin translation of Aesop.

As you said, there's a lot of male members in this tapestry and sometimes quite graphically shown in quite exaggerated format. Where does that position the tapestry in terms of early medieval art? Do we get these sorts of depictions of genitalia in. In other forms of art?

There are quite a few sculptural representations of genitalia on fairly obscure parish churches. I'm thinking in particular of the church of Kilpeck in the west of Herefordshire. But the genitalia depicted in these churches is preponderantly female. And of course, there's no evidence of any female genitalia in the biotapestry, except for one profuse amount of pubic hair on one of the female figures. So the focus of the tapestry of the tapestry designer is quite different, and the way in which they're depicted is certainly totally different from the way in which a few instances of male genitalia are depicted in sculpture in early medieval churches.

So let's focus in on the horses first, then. So 88 horses show some sign of a phallus being shown, and some of them are large, clearly extended penises. What's going on?

I think that the designer is only interested in three of those 88. I think the rest, the remaining 85, are just to demonstrate that the horses in question are stallions. The designer is interested in the horse which Odo of Bayer, Odo, the bishop of Bayer, the duke's half brother, is riding, and that's not a particularly well endowed horse. He. I say he. You might want me to justify that later, but I think the designer is male. He depicts Earl Harold Ultimately, King Harold ii, who is defeated in the battle on a horse with a much larger penis than Odo of Bayer's horse. And by far the biggest is that of Duke William, who will be victorious in the battle. And we think in the lost ending of the tapestry, almost certainly is depicted being crowned as King of England, which was the culmination of the story.

Okay. And so why would these men have horses with exaggerated penises?

Well, two of them do. Well, I think the point is the differentials that Harold II is depicted, as it were, by association with his horse, as quite a significant figure. But Duke William is being shown to be much the most significant figure in the story told by the tapestry. That would be my hunch, but of course, I can't prove any of this.

Might we imagine, then, it's similar to a very rich man having a posh sports car. Is that the sort of line that we're seeing there?

I suppose so, yes. Yes.

And you mentioned Odo of Bayeux there. He is one of the people who's regularly touted as the patron of the tapestry.

He is. I don't think he is the patron. It's certainly the case that the tapestry on two occasions refers to named individuals who were in Odo Beier's retinue. But I don't think that Odo Abaya is the patron because the tapestry is far too ambivalent about the conquest. If it were commissioned by the duke's half brother, it would have been a gung ho affirmation of his claim. In fact, much of the tapestry is subtly subverting aspects of that claim.

Let's talk about the human male members, then. So there's a few on there, so I'll just run through them and then we can come back and sort of talk in a bit more depth. So the examples we have, we've got two figures naked, a man and a woman, in the lower border beneath a scene where Earl Harold is being taken to see Duke William in Normandy.

Yes.

Then we have a scene where Harold and William meet in his palace. And below the conversation in the border, there is a naked man, surprisingly, doing some carpentry. And then very soon after that, we have the enigmatic elf giver scene in the main frieze of the tapestry, where a woman is kind of mysteriously levitating and either being accosted or caressed by a cleric. And beneath them, in the lower border is a naked man with prominent genitals. And he seems to be sort of aping the stance of the cleric above. And then much later on in the tapestry, as the armies begin to sort of coalesce for the Battle of Hastings, we have two naked couples in the upper border this time, rather than the lower border, men and women running together. It seems to be sort of. Or moving close together. They're all naked. One of the males kind of hides his manhood behind a very obvious axe, but you can kind of see his testicles behind him. And the other one, the other man, his penis is clearly showing.

Yes.

And then there's a further example, possible example, that you cite much later on in the lower border, where there's the dead men have their clothes removed and possibly we see something there as well.

Yes.

Does that cover the examples as you've counted them?

Yes, it does. There are five instances, as you say, and I think that four of them. I think Steve White is correct, that these are alluding to particular fables of Aesop. And I don't think there's much point in me going into detail about what is being recounted in each of those fables. But obviously sexual activity is involved in every case. It is sexual activity which involves deceit or shame. And that makes me think that whoever designed the tapestry was, and we know that the person who designed the tapestry must have chosen the seams which were going to be put in the friezes beneath the main action was, as it were, covertly alluding to what was going on in the main narrative. Phaedrus, who I've already referred to, the Latin translator of Aesop, actually says so the designer would have read this, says that the point of Aesop's fables is to make points obliquely without being explicit. And what it seems to me the designer is doing is suggesting that what's going on in those different episodes in the narrative involves deceit, betrayal, shameful action. The one case which you mentioned where we can't identify a particular Aesop fable as being depicted in the frieze is that which involves the case of sexual harassment by a priest. Now, the really interesting thing about that episode is that it's clear, given that it's in the main narrative and that the woman is named, it's clear that everybody who saw that must have known instantly what it was alluding to. And as you say, it looks as if this woman is being fondled by the priest. And the fact that this image appears in the frieze at the bottom shows that that is what's going on. We have no idea what this episode is, but it was so familiar to everybody who saw the tapestry. Fifteen years after the conquest that nothing further needed to be said than giving her name and depicting her being fondled by a priest. So that always seems to me to indicate just how tenuous our grasp is on the key details.

[Progressive Advertiser]

This story you chose to hit play on this podcast today. Smart Choice Progressive loves to help people make smart choices. That's why they offer a tool called Auto Quote Explorer that allows you to compare your Progressive car insurance quote with rates from other companies. So you save time on the research and can enjoy savings when you choose the best rate for you. Give it a try after this [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates not available in all states or situations. Prices vary based on how you buy.

[Shopify Advertiser]

When you think about super successful businesses that are selling through the roof, like Heinz or Mattel, you think about a great product, a cool brand and brilliant marketing. But there's a secret the business behind the business making selling simple for them and buying simple for their customers. For millions of businesses, that business is Shopify. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout as Heinz and Mattel. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com promo all lowercase. Go to shopify.com promo to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.com promo we'll come back to the.

[Professor George Garnett]

Audience and kind of what they were expected to take from the tapestry in a second. But I know your views on this because we've discussed it on email, but for our listeners, do you think it's possible there's actually one more penis in the tapestry? And I'm referring to an episode earlier on in the tapestry in the lower border where there are two men, both fully clothed, so at odds with earlier examples, and they're kind of chasing animals or being chased by animals or perhaps both. And one of those men has something hanging down from his smock, which looks a bit curious in the light of the conversation we're having. But you think that that's.

I think you're getting obsessed, Dave. It's quite clear to me that what is being depicted in that instance is the scabbard of his sword or dagger, because right at its end is a yellow blob, which I take to be a depiction of probably brass, I should think.

Right?

And if you look at what are incontrovertibly penises in the tapestry, none of them has a yellow blob at the end.

And you used, memorably used the word in the article you've written for us about this, about the pre epic predilections of the Tapestry designer. Basically, I'm falling into the tapestry designer's trap.

There you are. Yes.

I'm sorry.

You're seeing them everywhere.

I must be careful. Okay. So, talking about the designer and the intended audience, what does this study tell us about A, who you think had it made and B, who it was supposed to be seen by?

I think it tells us that whoever designed it was learned. I've said that I think he was almost certainly a man. And the reason is because he is learned. He's clearly read Fedras translation of Aesop's Fables. And it's of course always possible that some very well educated nuns might have done that, but I think it's more likely that somebody with a clerical education would have done that. The tapestry still has traces on its reverse of the design being sketched with chalk on the linen. So it's being very carefully designed by somebody in order to convey a number of messages. I think whoever designed it almost certainly drafted the captions. The captions often deliberately avoid the point of what's being portrayed in the main narrative of the chronicle. And I think that's because whoever designed it was deliberately being ambiguous or ambivalent about the narrative so that it would be viewed in different ways by different audiences. I think he is English. The reason? I think that. Well, there are two reasons why I think that firstly, at one point the captions are all in Latin, but at one point they lapse into English. Now, you could say that that's the needle women who are sewing it, but given that they're following a strict design, it seems to me unlikely that that's the case. I think that this is the designer's lapse, not the needlewomen's lapse. And secondly, the spelling of personal names and place names is clearly the work of someone who's English, not French, in that many of the spellings are distinctively English. As for who it's designed for, my colleague John Blair thinks that it's possible that these things were being mass manufactured. So he's willing to accept that Odo of Bayer actually commissioned this particular one, or at least ordered this one. I've already explained why I don't think that that is the case. The view of those who accept that it is Odo of Byers, and that includes Elizabeth Paston, who has written the great recent book with Steve White on this subject. They think that it was manufactured for display. They suggest it was manufactured for display at St. Augustine's Canterbury. We know that it was manufactured at least in close association with St. Augustine's Canterbury. We know that the designer must have had access to manuscripts in the library of St. Augustine's Canterbury, because there are distinctive St. Augustine's images found in manuscripts from that library and only from that library, which reappears, or something very closely approximating to them in the tapestry. I still find it difficult to believe that this work of art was designed for display in a church. Now, I've already, at your instigation, referred to the obscene carvings at Kilpeck and in various other obscure parish churches. But St. Augustine's Canterbury is not an obscure parish church. It is one of the major monastic houses of the realm. That's one reason why I don't think it can be designed for display there. The second reason is that there's nothing in the tapestry really, which is concerned with ecclesiastical matters. Churches are depicted. Earl Harold is shown swearing an oath with his hand on relics, but otherwise its interests are almost exclusively secular. It's very interested military affairs, unsurprisingly, although not only in military affairs, because, of course, two thirds of what survives of the tapestry is about what precedes the Battle of Hastings. Whoever designed it did not really understand the nature of arms and armour in this period, because all of the soldiers are depicted wearing. Even the cavalry are depicted wearing chainmail trousers. Now, I don't know how often you go out riding, but if you did wearing chainmail trousers, your legs would be shredded quite quickly and so would the flanks of your horse. So this is not somebody who understands every aspect of warfare in this period, but it's somebody who is really interested in these matters and really interested in the way in which the conquest happened and not, it seems to me, really in the least bit interested in ecclesiastical matters.

The answer to your question is literally never. I've never ridden a horse wearing chainmail, so we'll have to leave that to other people's experience. But based on what you've said, if the audience were to take this, these messages, these Aesopian messages from what's seen in the borders, they would have to be pretty educated.

They would have to be very educated as well. But of course, it may be that the designer was just taking enormous pleasure in his own virtuosity, as it were, and it didn't matter so much to him that those who viewed the tapestry were able to pick up all of the allusions. One simply doesn't know. The example which springs to mind is the great William of Malmesbury, the early to mid 12th century historian, whose works are, as he was well aware, and as he indeed thought, the best thing written on English history since Bede 400 years before. His works are full of allusions to classical Roman historians. He cannot possibly have expected all those who read his works or listened to them to pick up all those illusions. He just took pleasure in the fact that he could stitch them together into a narrative. Now, I don't know whether the designer of the tapestry was somebody who had a similarly high opinion of his own abilities.

And do you imagine, based on what you know about the period generally, that these sort of interludes of graphic nudity would have stopped the audience in their track. Would they have been surprised at seeing this in this art form?

I have no idea. But clearly, as you know, because we've talked about this, a copy of the tapestry was made in the late 19th century by some very respectable ladies, and they eliminated all of these bits. So even if it was acceptable to an audience in the 1070s and 1080s, it clearly was not acceptable to an audience in the 1880s.

Okay, to summarise, then, would you be able to just tell us what you think the presence of the penises in the tapestry tells us about the way we should understand this document, this art form today?

Well, I think what it tells us is not that this was designed by a dirty old man. I think what it tells us is that this was designed by someone who wanted to convey, as he now successfully does to us now that we've decoded it. He wanted to convey his serious doubts about the standard story which was told to justify the Norman conquest of England. He wanted to suggest that. That at various key points in that story, something very suspect and reprehensible was going on. But he did not want to say that, perhaps could not say that overtly. So it is the document written in code. And as I've already said, Phaedrus, the translator of Aesop, says that that's the point of Aesop's Fables in the first place, to convey messages obliquely.

That's an excellent summary. Thank you for that. I wonder if I could just take you back to when you did this original piece of research. You wrote an article for Beef's History Magazine a few years ago on this topic, and you were telling me when we were talking about this interview that you got quite an interesting reaction to it. What was the reaction amongst your academic colleagues when you put forward this piece of academic research?

My academic colleagues were mostly very entertained that I had at last moved into gender history. And one of them said to me, well, you're not a historian of masculinity. George, you're a historian of masculinities, 93 of them, he said. I have no access to to social media. I very much doubt whether I'll see this podcast at all. But my sons did, and still do, and after the article was published, they would descend each morning ecstatic at the latest abuse which had been heaped upon me by Twitter and other platforms. So I think the best insult was if only he looked in a mirror, he would have seen a 94th. I think there was a big story in the Daily Mail. They picked it up and in their comments somebody was sounding off about the fact that professors at Oxford are paid to do this sort of thing. Well, I hope that what I've shown this afternoon is that this is not just about observing. It's about trying to understand the mind of the person who is retelling what appears to be the standard official story, but is actually subverting it with literary allusions which obviously he enjoyed and which it's possible others who were similarly educated would enjoy. Now, who those people were, I don't know, but it seems to me incontrovertible that this is an equivocal, highly learned attempt to subvert official history.

[Dave Musgrove]

That was Professor George Garnett from St Hugh's College at the University of Oxford. You can read his full article on our website historyextra.com where you can also find a new video on the subject in which David Musgrove explores the ruder aspects of the reading replica of the Mayor tapestry that's also available now on History Extra's YouTube channel. And just a reminder that if you're keen to hear more more on salacious early medieval matters, you can find a bonus episode delving into Anglo Saxon sex in your podcast feeds, exclusively for History Extra plus subscribers. It's available now across most podcast platforms, and if you aren't already, you can become a History Extra plus subscriber by clicking the link in the description of this episode. Subscribers to History Extra plus get ad free listening to all of history History Extras podcasts, as well as early access and exclusives. Thanks for listening. This podcast was produced by Daniel Kramer Arden.