Who commissioned the Bayeux Tapestry and why? The question remains open after a considerable body of innovative new writing on the subject during the last decade has given grounds for a major re-evaluation of the Tapestry. Two ideas in particular demand fuller investigation: first, that the Tapestry is an independent, pro-English, source, artistically the first major fusion of Anglo-Norman-Scandinavian iconography and linguistically influenced by both English and French, and secondly, that it was produced as early as 1068 x 1070, since it precedes the Norman vilification of Harold that arose as a response to the various revolts that began in May 1068. Despite the ingenuity of attempts to demonstrate the contrary intention from the curious figures appearing in the borders, the fact is that not a single pejorative is ever attached to Harold in the tituli of the work. Recent detailed studies of the depictions of Harold show him to have been represented with honour even in the tightest of corners. The Tapestry therefore certainly predates the systematic assault on Harold as a perjured usurper, and thus a tyrant whose reign was thereby nullified, which was the legal case fashioned by Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury and subsequently presented at Rome, as demonstrated nearly twenty years ago by George Garnett. A similar assault was made on the prelacy and memory of Lanfranc's predecessor Stigand, who had controversially been appointed whilst the archbishop ousted in 1052 still lived. A more longstanding tendency to date the Tapestry to 1070 x 1082, with Bishop Odo as the generally assumed patron, has entailed some fairly contorted attempts to understand the inter-relationships between this and contemporary or near contemporary written sources.