Description: Portrait of JMW Turner and His Father by Joseph Farington 1797 (J.M.W.) Hastings Painting has staining in sky and some fading commensurate with 180 years without a glass cover. The listing includes copyright of all the words below and the painting- which is the only first hand evidence of 'The Battle Of Hastings' as depicted on the Bayeux tapestry and copyright - observation of a light-house on the tapestry and copyright to the original Roman name of Hastings 'Hay saat ea ynaghana'. and much more as described in the listing. It documents in no particular order the discovery of the site of William's motte at Hastings by careful examination of the painting by Joseph Farington in 1797. From this observation of the motte on the beach as also described in the records of Battle Abbey, one must conclude that the tower next to William seated at Hastings shown on the Bayeux tapestry is a lighthouse. A unique observation; never before alluded to in 1000 years. (A defensible beacon which guided William to land at Hastings - the exact site shown in this Farington painting) (all on top of the depiction of Turner and his father painted by their associate Farington.(I would like to take the opportunity to thank the person who offered £7000 for this painting for their offer, but we could not accept this due to the complexities of VAT - in particular it would likely push us into paying VAT at the time of the offer - which would entail significant work going forward, but from which we might only make a few hundred pounds -albeit that the PDSA might have benefited to the tune of £6300)(also bearing in mind that one is not only purchasing a unique painting of Turner and his father in front of the ruins of Hastings in 1797 by the renowned accurate artist and friend and mentor of Turner , Joseph Farington) - the ruins as so marked on the Yeakell and Gardner c1780, map, including the depiction of Williams 'castle' ('motte') exactly as seen on the Bayeux Tapestry..... but one is also buying the copyright of the 'Battle of Hastings' - the true account derived from unique detail in the painting as cross referenced against contemporary prints of the same area by Gross (1780) and a painting by another renowned accurate artist of the day Samuel H. Grimm in 1784 as viewed both from the cliff top and the White Rock headland as it then existed. (before it was blown up). Testament to the truth of these assertions is the discovery of the Roman origin of the name Hastings - in particular here revealed to be 'Hay saat ea ynaghana' pronounced 'Hastyngge '(as Hastings was recorded supposedly first in about 800 AD) (The Romans who built the fort at the Hastings headland promontory (as it then existed, surrounded by a pond which was later built over 800 years later, by Boykett Breeds in about 1800 (but which is shown in the present painting)) (noting particularly ...The Norman word for 'promontory',..... 'Pevensey' ) The byzantine Romans deriving the word for the fort from the Arabic where they had prior built similar forts, also from a sea-curing concrete)Thus the copyright to this word (and much more as described in the listing)- which pushes the origins of the name Hastings back 800 years comes with the ownership of the painting. One is thus buying copyright to the origin of Hastings..... among the detail of the here uniquely described Battle.The purchaser will need the resources to defend the copyright of the material they are purchasing. It encompasses the history and origin of the English speaking world as it was created at the 'Battle Of Hastings', including the very origin of the word 'Hastings' itself - as I show - derived from the Arabic.Publisher Peter T. Reynolds1 Lever Street Hazel groveStockport SK74ENUnited Kingdom(business details and contact info below, editor Kim Rathbone)Owners of copyright and to whom licensing enquiries should be addressed.(A six page dossier outlining the context of the below)I lay claim to the copyright of the below ideas by virtue of their first publication and a share in the finds at the site of Cross In hand Beacon as belonging to the Battle Of Hastings (particularly the 'Battle of Isenherst' or 'Herst' as it should be known (possibly could be called the battle of 'THE HESTINGAS' ('The Hestingas' being the same as 'Hestingas') at the exact site here pictured in the listing) now at Cross In hand at the hill of the now site of the English Woodland Tree Nursery) Previously the site of the beacon at 'cross in hand'.I believe the actual lane on which Harold stood was the lane to the beacon - which was called 'Bell Fire Drum Lane' - a corruption from the Arabic haran apuldran 'Hara Na Pul Dran' ' English corruption - 'hara na pel drum' .Also the word for a 'tree' which could be used for all of these signalling functions.. Which more generally gave its name to 'beacon'. I think the letter A means 'Beacon' by virtue of the shape of the letter. So other towns and place names beginning with A are likely beacons. This is perhaps the origin of the letter A.Beacons were crucial for survival in prehistory. The use of the letter or symbol A primal. Perhaps used in cave painting,Maybe an apple tree good for all these functions?Rebecca Welsh pointing out that Puldre might also refer to pollarded. So the avenue to the beacon of pollarded trees used for fuel for the beacon, defence from arrows protecting flanks of the hill fort, a source of food when under siege and called a Fosse from the Latin - 'A bank of new growth' to supply fuel to the beacon or beacons = Hence the Fosse Way a chain of beacons.The suffix Na changing the meaning of Hara from 'Lane' to 'Hot' - So Hara Na actually 'fire lane' in the context of a lane to a beacon.As I also suggest 'Boum' is Norman for lighthouse or signal house - a tree of sound etc. The lighthouse at Hastings (Burj Hestinga), I contest shown on the Bayeux Tapestry next to and integral with, William's castle at Hastings. By virtue of my discovering the said location of the final Battle Of Hastings (at Senlac) as the site of the Battle of Hastings at Senlac - now the ridge at Cross In Hand (previously believed to be at Battle)The site at Cross In Hand (Prior Heathfield - prior - 'HERST' at haran apuldran) (HERST refering to the quarry which existed at the foot of the hill - appearing on maps from 1920 - previously an iron ore mine and site of Harold's armory and being referred to as the site of the battle in records of Battle Abbey) _The remains of the original Battle Abbey on the Western flank of the ridge before being moved to its current site of 'Battle' as per the records of Battle Abbey......the hill being named Senlac because it is between 'sandy lakes' which still exist at its foot..And which can be identified as Malfosse - a location into which cavalry would fall because of the lay of the land and their charge - along the foot of the hill being precarious - balanced at its edge.Although the Battle Of Hastings has previously been claimed the to be at modern day Heathfield - I show (remebering that Heathfield did not exist in 1066)1.) Exactly the site of the battle, - on the ridge leading from the English Woodland tree nursery (on the A267at modern day Cross In Hand) corresponding to an ancient ridgeway and cross roads (east -west / north- south- in fact in 1066 having the name - 'Haran apuldran' (previouly described as 'The Hoary Apple Tree') which was also used as a key descriptor of the site in texts (It I suggest rather a corruption from the Romano -Arabic for 'Beacon Lane' 'Hara na Pul Dran' - following my identification of the word 'Hastings' as also corresponding to the Arabic 'Hay saat ea ynaghana' - meaning 'It Will Succeed Us' and 'Ashburnham' as the Arabic for 'Arise port' (and thus the tidal port accessible from the sea at Spring High Tide {in this case crucially in respect of the battle -on the 13th or 14th of the October 1066})) - The key feature and locator of the final battle site in 1066 therefore its beacon and the lane of pollarded trees which led up to it (as shown on the Bayeux Tapestry) Identifying it, together with it's quarry at its foot, as a Beacon-Hill-fort. The tree lined lane ('Hara' - possibly 'Hara-n') I contest called a 'FOSSE' , having the joint meaning of a ditch (as a component of defense), but also of, 'Novus Agger' - meaning 'Bank of New Growth' -pollarded trees (they're being pollarded -credit Rebecca Welsh), I contest to supply the beacon with wood. (as also applied to the 'FOSSE WAY' and the beacon sites which were connected by the Fosse Way)2.) I show the original site of Battle Abbey, here shown on the western flank of the ridge along 'hara na pul dran' as described in the records of the relocated Battle Abbey - those records kept at its later site of Battle.3.) I show the site of 'The quarry', which was described as 'Herst' in the records of Battle Abbey, there being described as the site of the Battle. (Herst as seen in the modern name for 'Cross In Hand' - Isenherst - - 'Isen would not have been needed as a descriptor in 1066 as all 'Hersts' would be iron foundries - the uniqueness of this particular 'Herst' as a locator, being that it is at the foot of the (Cross In Hand - prior 'hara na pul dran' - beacon - so locally providing arms to defend the beacon [putting iron crosses in hands]) Located at the intersection with the ridge track, beacon lane (hara na pul dran), from the English Woodland Tree Nursery with the A267In this respect - I also identify 'The Fyrd' - specifically as those 'beckoned' - 'beacon'd' - Fyr being Norse for 'Beacon'. Hence the beacon the key characteristic of Harold's method of fighting (and the then contemporary and highly evolved status quo method of fighting in Britain- turned over by William) . Thus crucially identifying the battle as occurring at a beacon-hill-fort. Thus I identify where finds should be made and therefore lay claim to a share in those finds. Moreover I lay claim to the use of the Bayeux Tapestry in the context that it embodies a light or signal house, adjacent and or integral to William's castle at Hastings), the site of which I locate at the foot of what is now the castle headland and I contest marked Boum (French and High german (Bohon or similar) for signal beacon using resonance or amplification of light and sound) on a 1798 map (Hastings Observer 12th Feb 2021). The site being on top of a Roman fort I discovered (and part reported in the Hastings Observer) in a 1776 Grose print of Hastings Castle looking down at the beach.) and I contest is made using a sea-curing Roman concrete made with the admixture of volcanic Ash from Naples and or ash locally from iron workings and lime from the lime kilns on the headland at Hastings. Moreover the name of the Roman fort derived from the Arabic ' HAY SAAT EA YNAGHANA' meaning 'IT WILL SUCCEED US' But named in conjoinder with the name of the tribe - The Hestinga - who were already there and remained after the Romans left, deriving their name as horse herders or semi-nomadic horse traders and breeders and crucially having their own historic horse grazing lands around modern day Hastings.(marked on the earliest maps as Haestingas - I suggest this applies undifferentiated to both the area and the tribe The Haestingas (this important to interpretation of events as seen described on the Bayeux Tapestry - and particulay William's relationship withv' The Hestingas '( I contest there referred to simply as 'Hestingas')) This would suggest the Romans were also trading with the Hestinga before they invaded - like William. (Although there is no written record of this - and indeed no reference to Hastings until 700 AD - so one must use the name of the Roman fort, as I here identify, particularly, 'Hay saat ea ynaghana' as the earliest origin of the name 'Hastings' itself (meaning 'It Will Succeed Us' - derived from the Arabic) This throws into serious doubt the previous universally held idea that Hastings derives from the translation from the Old English as 'Followers Of Haesta'. Indeed I here contest - more obviously -the word derives in part as an English corruption from the Danish - 'Followers of Horses' - The Roman name perhaps a marriage in terms of onomatopoetic utterance and functional description of both a 'domesticated horse' and a 'concrete fort'. (It Will Follow Us) (The lighthouse as I contest seen in the Tapestry used as a beacon for William's landing at Hastings, navigating through a narrow rocky channel to make an unopposed landing in the unique tidal lagoons of Hastings beach. Shown by myself for the first time in this painting by Joseph Farington. The lighthouse -being stone would exist prior to William's landing and would guide him at night through or up until the start of the rocky channel at Hastings, to an unopposed landing in the morning..I'd be interested in any legally qualified person who would wish to defend this copyright covering , film. media. print and television rights. Epic film rights for those prepared to act quicklyHaran apuldranReally from the arabic (Roman)- corrupted to 'Bell Fire Drum Lane' (effectively Beacon Lane at today's Cross in Hand) leading to Beacon Down) the Beacon Hill fort which Harold made his stand and the lane upon which he died at THE BATTLE OF HASTINGSThe Most Dramatic Story of a 1000 yearsEven giving rise to 'The sign of the Cross' as seen in the Christian and other religions.(an iron cross flung as an unstoppable weapon from hilltop beacon forts in the early iron age) As seen at 'The Cross In Hand' site of the battle.(The cross with flattened ends being used by the religious due to their not being allowed to draw blood.) Also the origin of the German Iron Cross - A sharpened version)+ Great background discovery story I lay claim to the copyright of the below ideas by virtue of their first publication and a share in the finds at the site of Cross In hand Beacon as belonging to the Battle Of Hastings (particularly the 'Battle of Heathfield' as it should be known at the exact site here pictured in the listing) now at Cross In hand at the hill of the now site of the English Tree Nursery) Previously the site of the beacon at 'cross in hand'.By virtue of my discovering the said location of the final Battle Of Hastings (at Senlac) as the site of the Battle of Hastings at Senlac - now the ridge at Cross In Hand (previously believed to be at Battle)The site at Cross In Hand (Prior Heathfield) being named Senlac because it is between 'sandy lakes' which still exist at its foot..And which can be identified as Malfosse - a location into which cavalry would fall because of the lay of the land and their charge - along the foot of the hill being precarious - balanced at its edge.Although the Battle Of Hastings has previously been claimed the to be at Heathfield - I show exactly the site of the battle and thus where finds should be made and therefore lay claim to a share in those finds.Moreover I lay claim to the use of the Bayeux Tapestry in the context that it embodies a light or signal house, adjacent and or integral to William's castle at Hastings), the site of which I locate at the foot of what is now the castle headland and I contest marked Boum (French and High german (Bohon oe similar) for signal beacon using resonance or amplification of light and sound) on a 1798 map (Hastings Observer 12th Feb 2021). The site being on top of a Roman fort I discovered (and reported in the hastings Observer) in a 1776 Grose print of Hastings Castle looking down at the beach.) and I contest is made using a sea-curing Roman concrete made with the admixture of volcanic Ash from Naples and or ash locally from iron workings and lime from the lime kilns on the headland at Hastings. (The lighthouse used as a beacon for William's landing at Hastings, navigating through a narrow rocky channel to make an unopposed landing in the unique tidal lagoons of Hastings beach. Shown by myself for the first time in this painting by Joseph Farington.I'd be interested in any legally qualified person who would wish to defend this copyright covering , film. media. print and television rights.PTR 23/03/2021William would take an oath - The so-called 'WILLEM OATH' never to reveal the role of the Hestenga in his invasion. This defended to this day by the Knights Templar and Order of Garter of the Royal Household etc. It is the cornerstone of the United Kingdom and the enduring role of Royalty in it.Key should read Quay in first pic above.The painting for sale is the watercolor by Joseph Farington RA as shown below and in the fifth ebay hosted picture above and shown in all the Auctiva hosted images. Other images are supportive of its valuation.23/03/2021(One could add in general background to the below that The Hestengs (as called in the tapestry) were a separate kingdom to the West Saxons based in Pevensey. I contest that they are chiefly horse breeders and followers, quasi-nomadic. Unlike the Saxons -who were farmers (Saxon meaning plough or scythe from seax -a wooden handled iron implement - also a knife). It is known that William imported horses to breed from after the invasion. It is clear therefore that William would do a deal to buy his Cavalry horses from the Hestengs in return for unopposed access to the site of the Roman fort at Hastings, where there also existed a lighthouse (or Boum) as marked on the 1798 map of the site at the foot of the castle) Highly probably manned by a lighthouseman of that name who fought at the Battle Of Hastings with William. This is all the more reason that Harold would not want to enter Hesteng territory as he would have realized, as described below that the Hestengs had sided with William. Battle would be in their territory. That's why William declared that the final battle was there. That and the Bayeux tapestry would be testament to the fact that the Hestengs had not conspired with him in his landing at Hastings. The final battle was at Cross In Hand on the ridge (now the Engllish tree Nursery) which was the site of the beacon, in Harold's strong hold and armory. William would take an oath never to be let it known that the Hestengs had conspired with him, and this is supported today by his descendants. Hence the obfuscation as to what the Tapestry actually says and the lack of historical detail in official records. However there is enough evidence presented below to determine the exact site of the battle and the details of William's landing. That's also the reason that there has never been a major film about the event. (One would add that haran apuldran would be the name also applied to the chain of beacons - of which that at Herst was just one- and road between Appledore and Apuldram - then Apuldre and Apuldreham - Apluldre also referring to cider - a pulped apple drink used by the Roman Classis Britannicus fleet and supplied (together with salted pork) at Apuldreham.The Romans bringing apples with them and planting and cultivating them at the side of their roads (pollarding). The word Apple thus deriving from The Appian Way (perhaps in Apulia). Later high German and Danish interpretation of the original Roman/Byzantine name would be based upon Hore and Horen - to hear or 'listen'- and Apel or Appel - tre - 'the call' - so referring to muster points - which would be close to beacons. Burwash and Cross In Hand being relevant to The final battle as muster sites. Cross In hand being the cross roads of the (north South) London Road and 'haran apuldran'. (The roads not strictly 'crossing' - but joining over a short length - due to superstition.) Latest Update12.29. 21/03/2021 (correction 23/05/2021 low tide would be 6 hours prior to William's landing and not 12 as stated. Thus the lighthouse could be seen perhaps for the last 17 miles of William's approach to Hastings)Wenham as seen on the Hastings Observer 1798 map refers to a fortified port. from Arabic / Danish Roman / Byzantine) Harold would not want to get to Pevensey, rather his archers and navy would attempt to get to him at what is today Cross In Hand - then Senlac Hill, Heathfield. (between the sandy lakes as they still exist today) and delineating what was known as the malfosse in 1066). William would camp at Ashburnham (Highport (literally 'Ariseport' ) from the Arabic and a port only when the tide was at its highest and the channel from the sea to it navigable) to cut off as many avenues as Harold's archers had of reaching Harold by sea or indeed land. (as there were many tidal promontories and inlets extending inland toward Cross In Hand)The date of the battle being crucially decided by the Spring High tide of October 14th 1066, (the second spring high tide of the lunar month starting at the High spring tide of the 28th of September, when William first landed)) when Harold's navy had maximum opportunity to reach Harold. Failing their arrival William was forced to do battle as more Fyrd (Fyrd = beckoned men (from beacon)) would arrive and Harold's navy would have been sighted as leaving harbor where they had regrouped (probably the protected Isle Of Wight) and would be aiming to land at Pevensey , should the wind have been favorable. William making the calculation correctly that Harold's navy would not reach him together with his archers by the day of the battle at High spring tide (13-14th October) up until the time at which the channel inland to Harold would have been navigable. Latest Update14.00 18/03/2021reply to letter to Hastings museum. Sorry, - I had the addition at the bottom explaining why the battle took place at 'Cross In Hand' beacon hill.The reason was - that William was trying to get to Harold before he could rendez-vous with his navy at Pevensey - (William who had landed at Hastings unopposed (using the lighthouse to navigate the rocks etc at night)) . William camped and armed at Ashburnham (Highport -from Arabic-Danish), ('Highport', the nearest Harold's navy could have got to Harold, had the wind been in the right direction) (Harold's navy armed with his archers, having regrouped to the west after William had landed). William armed and ready for the fight at Ashburnham if the wind had changed and allowed Harold's fleet to get there. William forced to intercept Harold before he could turn South West and get to Pevensey - where he could await his archers and navy. Likewise, William could not wait for Harold's archers to get to him at Cross In Hand, nor could he afford to split his army, so abandoning Pevensey, on the basis of intelligence that Harold's fleet could not get there in time. (The lighthouse keeper 'Boum' recorded as fighting in the battle- and recorded on the 1798 map of Hastings -critical in sending signals)For Harold - In the absence of a favourable wind, which would bring his navy and archers, next best was to use the prepared hillfort at the beacon of Cross-in Hand. pre-stocked with stone, with a clear steep killing field, protected flanks and the site selected to draw William away from the coast - so that Harold's navy and archers could land when the wind allowed. (The sandy lakes (or Malfosse) at its foot, giving its name 'Senlac') ('Sandy Cross' also a district of the nearby Heathfield - the name given to the battle before 1900))William had to fight before Harold's archers arrived.He knew that Harold had no archers - otherwise he wouldn't have deployed his own in the front rank - with Harold's archers out ranging them (and out of sight) from the top of the hill - and / or, protected, behind the ridge top, had they been there. Latest update 07.36 -16/03/2021 As shown -for the first time in 1000 years, based upon the revelations in this painting, the Bayeux tapestry depicts a signal tower / light-house integral to William's castle at Hastings. Moreover the exact location of the castle is corroborated by the Grose Print of 1776, which also reveals that its base on a prior Roman fort would have had to be made of a sea/curing concrete as made and used by the Romans extensively throughout the Mediterranean, utilizing volcanic ash rather than sand in the mix. . Probably brought with them during their invasion of Britain at exactly the same site 1000 years earlier, although possibly also using ash from local iron works to supplement the volcanic ash brought with them from Naples.It is interesting that there should be a light or signal tower at the fort - given that it is overlooked by cliffs.However , this painting shows for the first time the exact location of the Castle at the deep water entrance to the purely tidal Haven of Hastings (marked Hastings Haven Inunded on the earliest Speed 1610/1574 Map). Thus the tower is a navigation aid or light-house marking the narrow navigable entrance to the inland part of the port. It likely therefore present continuously from the Roman period and being there when William first landed. I contest a fixed beacon that would allow William to navigate at night in the latter part of his channel crossing. (At low tide it would appear 30 foot higher, 12 hours prior to his landing at the spring high tide of 10.55 am at Hastings on the morning of 28 September 1066. One might assume that it was the same hight as other Roman beacon towers and therefore would have been visible a long way into the channel throughout his approach and have been visible during daylight to mark the navigation) Latest update 07.36 -16/03/2021 As shown -for the first time in 1000 years, based upon the revelations in this painting, the Bayeux tapestry depicts a signal tower / light-house integral to William's castle at Hastings. Moreover the exact location of the castle is corroborated by the Grose Print of 1776, which also reveals that its base on a prior Roman fort would have had to be made of a sea/curing concrete as made and used by the Romans extensively throughout the Mediterranean, utilizing volcanic ash rather than sand in the mix. . Probably brought with them during their invasion of Britain at exactly the same site 1000 years earlier, although possibly also using ash from local iron works to supplement the volcanic ash brought with them from Naples.It is interesting that there should be a light or signal tower at the fort - given that it is overlooked by cliffs.However , this painting shows for the first time the exact location of the Castle at the deep water entrance to the purely tidal Haven of Hastings (marked Hastings Haven Inunded on the earliest Speed 1610/1574 Map). Thus the tower is a navigation aid or light-house marking the narrow navigable entrance to the inland part of the port. It likely therefore present continuously from the Roman period and being there when William first landed. I contest a fixed beacon that would allow William to navigate at night in the latter part of his channel crossing. (At low tide it would appear 30 foot higher, 12 hours prior to his landing at the spring high tide of 10.55 am at Hastings on the morning of 28 September 1066. One might assume that it was the same hight as other Roman beacon towers and therefore would have been visible a long way into the channel throughout his approach and have been visible during daylight to mark the navigation) Other commentators have postulated that navigation along the coast would have been treacherous because of the rocks , remnant from the 'Castle headland' (modern day name) and the White Rock headland which extended into and beneath the sea. (Indeed a painting in Hastings museum and Art gallery shows a shipwreck at the site. Hence it is highly likely the Hastings Harbor entrance would always have needed a light-house. The remains of its steps - as shown on the Bayeux Tapestry, can just be seen in the present painting as indicated. Making it possible to reconstruct it as it is seen in the Bayeux Tapestry, using an artistic impression as shown.The fine detail of farington revealing ever more first hand evidence of William's invasion and the events of 1066. Latest 18.48 -12/06/2021Important to recognize that Harold's position was prepared prior to the battle as were other sites situated as hill-forts around beacons. Pre stocked with stone missiles and a cleared killing field in front - obstacles to the sides to prevent cavalry charges. However William had worked out a way of getting the defenders down from their fortified position. Specifically by feigning death (lowering his standard) at the hottest point of the battle. - When and where his own troops were being bombarded from the highest and steepest point.The defending side would fall forward under their own attacking momentum down the hill after the fleeing aggressors when William's men would lose confidence and flee - with Harold's men under their own downward momentum in pursuit. On the lower ground at the flanks, Williams cavalry could charge longitudinally across the hill to intercept the downward rushing defenders who would be running downward off balance. His cavalry would ride a circuit so that any fallen would not be in the way of following horses. Some of his horses would fall in the ditch at the base of the hill, (the 'malfosse' - it being specifically designed to stop the free movement of horses. However William would have perfected the technique, which the practitioners of the ancient method of hill-fort fighting, would never have seen, and use the same technique to quell uprisings around the country. So successful was the tactic, that William would gain sponsorship from the Pope (as he had to purchase horses from the 'Hestengs' ) to conquer the Holy Land - in the form of the crusades. An organisation would be set up called the 'Knights Templars' , to fund the purchase of horses from traditional horse traders and herders or 'Hestengs' from regions into which they would gain a foothold, using the same tactics as they had in England, to suppress the Rulers, who would be using this technique of fighting from hill-forts as exemplified by Harold. The Normans going on this crusade would meet at the site of the Battle Of Hastings, at The Cross In Hand, before they left. There would always have been an Inn of some sort on the site from the year after 1066.Many similar armies around the time of Harold would have a navy which used archers, so would lack archers on their hill-forts and William would adapt his tactic to suit. It would be imperative that his enemies never knew of his methods, so the Bayeux tapestry was commissioned to create a false story - both of the purchase of his horses from the local Hestengs, and of his tactics.A letter from myself to Hastings museum, sent today 0.9.17 am...... 12/03/2021HiI have deduced that the battle of Hastings was at the site of what is now the 'The English Woodlands nursery' at Cross In Hands near Heathfield Sussex. On the A267.Am I legally entitled to the value of any of the finds there?I suggest it was the site of a becon (beacon) and an ancient hill fort developed in 1066 as a pre-existing defensive position , one of a chain of such defensible hill-forts , used by Harold. William having developed the tactic of feigning retreat to get such fort's occupants from their otherwise impregnable positions, as he would meet such defenses everywhere. He developing cavalry for the purpose.The site would be selected by Harold in 1066 for its difficulty to use cavalry against it.Harold would take up the position, and be waiting for the signal from the coast, that his navy and importantly his archers had arrived at Pevensey from the Isle Of Wight, having regrouped there, after William had landed at Hastings unopposed - using its unique geography (tidal port and lagoons) (marked 'Hastings Haven inunded' on the Speed 1610 map.). (and conspiring with local 'Hestengs or horse-people or followers - offering to buy his horses from them, in return for their co-operation {as Harold and leaders of the time did not use Cavalry - so this a tactic William had developed prior to his invasion - and a part of his reason for developing cavalry as a weapon }). However the wind on the day of the battle would not be in the right direction, just as it had not been when William landed and both would receive signal that Harold's fleet with its archers had not landed. (had both William and Harold been waiting for the wind to be in the right direction - in order to execute their battle plans?)The Cross In Hand beacon (becon) would be selected by Harold to draw William north and just far enough from Pevensey so that his navy could land unopposed; and so that a signal could be seen to indicate to Harold that his navy and crucially his archers, had made land-fall. William could not afford to split his forces and so would neglect Pevensey, predicting the wind would not be favorable for Harold's archers and navy to arrive in time to assist Harold.Harold's method of fighting, being ancient - at the sites of fortified hill-top becons.William knew Harold didn't have any archers - even though he wouldn't have been able to see them behind the ridge from where they would fire their arrows defended by the shield-wall in front and ridge. So he positioned his archers in the front rank, otherwise a suicidal position as Harold's archers would have much greater range from the top of the hill. William knew Harold's archers were with his navy, taking the gamble that the wind was persistently in the wrong direction for Harold's fleet to get there in time. And he would be able to see Harold's ships coming - and use beacons to signal such.I'm just wondering if I am legally entitled to the value of any of the finds there?The ridge upon which Harold's men stood is now the road to the nursery from it's entrance sign. The malfosse - the ditches at its base.There is a high-point from where Harold's right flank would naturally fall on William's left flank. It would have a pre-existing mound of rocks which Harold would use and drive William's left flank down the hill.William was no stranger to such a lay-out, and would specifically have developed and used his tactic against it.The place is called 'The Cross In Hand' because the Norman knights would gather there to go to the crusades as it was the site of their greatest victory.The next beacon along in the chain still exists and would have been used in 1066. Indeed - a book has been written about it - and although mentioning that 'The Cross In Hand Beacon' was the next in the chain, no mention is made of its use in 1066.Kind Regards Peter ReynoldsPS would it be possible to forward this to those qualified to answer this question.ThanksPS I have published all of this in my ebay listingsand recorded it. Presumably the nursery was acquired in 1912 to cover this up as the association of the battle with Heathfield disappeared at that time. And presumably it has been dug over. Nevertheless I think there are more finds there and at Hastings, of great value.re previous obviously it's a tactic the Normans would continue to use throughout their conquest- so Producing The Bayeux tapestry as counter intelligence. It must be noted that there seems to be some inconsistencies between different editions of the Speed 1610 map - both in terms of spelling and in the site of beacons. Perhaps deliberately to hide the site of the battle.However there was certainly a beacon at the Cross in Hand, it is 9 miles from Pevensey and North of Pevensey - a pre-constructed site of defense which Harold could utilize and it corresponds with pre-1912 descriptions of the 'Battle of Heathfield' -albeit that the Cross in Hand would not have existed before 1066. Only being mentioned in legend as the site of meeting of the Crusaders.c1095.Like-wise Hastings would not have to pay taxes - so not appearing in the Bayeux tapestry.The crusades were thought up by the Normans following their conquest - as they had developed the technique of buying horses for the cavalry to gain access to countries. Then develop the cavalry to overcome the ancient way of defending beacon hills.This was so successful, that they then laid sight on the ultimate goal, to gain possession of Jerusalem. That's why they met at 'The Cross in Hand' before they left. The sight of their collective dominance over England.The Knights 'Templars' were founded to bankroll the purchase of horses to facilitate this unstoppable and modern tactic. Latest 12.12 -10/03/2021Harold's fleet at Pevensey and at other ports would be instructed to withdraw after finding that William had landed at Hastings and regroup with others at the Isle of White to await Harold's arrival - so that his archers, especially, would be available to complete his army. It was suggested from sources that Harold's army was not complete at the time of the battle. Implying that somebody knew of this, if not in detail. Harold would draw William north to allow his large fleet to land and decamp his archers unopposed, probably at Pevensey, depending on the weather., knowing that William could not afford to split his army to resist both Harold's archers/navy - and Harold, simultaneously, in separate engagements.Harold might have been awaiting a signal from Pevensey or the coast to say his boats had landed, encamped at the tallest hill in the area (at Heathfield- shown as such on a map of 1799) - the furthest point from the coast (being the farthest, highest point ) where he could get such a signal, from his fleet.William would have realized Harold's plan, as he knew that Harold's navy ( with their professional archers) were somewhere. The outcome was at that point finely balanced. When Harold's ships were first seen coming - William would have been forced to strike.By contrast Harold had chosen the site - (with the belief that his archers would have arrived by the time of the battle) , at the top of a hill, so that his archers could be situated - (out of range of William's archers, who were on much lower ground) , behind the ridge (the site selected so it did have such a ridge) and more-over, William's cavalry would be rendered ineffective by the steep ground.For his cavalry to be effective, William had to get Harold's men down from the hill. Feigning death, by lowering his standard would both embolden Harold's men and make his own men- at the sight of the toughest fighting (being bombarded from the highest, steepest point of the ridge) flee. Highly probably planned although it would not be beyond William to not to have told his own men. That way it would look authentic and believable. (pawns sacrificed for his knight's advantage)William's archers were drawn up at the front of his battle line - precisely because he knew Harold didn't or wouldn't have any archers at, or by the time, he chose to engage him. William's archers would have been totally exposed, had Harold had archers - because they would have had far less range than Harold's - at the top of the hill. In fact - if Harold had archers - they would have been positioned behind the ridge at the top of the hill (see for example my depiction of what I think is the actual site of the battle)And William would not have seen them. - So, William must have known - without being able to see them - that Harold did not have archers, before deploying his own archers at the front of the battle line.Latest 08.32 - 09/03/2021 I updated this listing with the actual hill of the battle and arrangement of the forces.Latest 23.08-08/03/2021Dr Rebecca Welshman believes the site of the final battle was Heathfield. I argue from the below that Harold was heading for his navy at Pevensey but avoiding the area around Hastings because the 'Hestengs' had colluded with William to allow him to land there. I argue therefore he was attempting to get to Pevensey by the shortest route whilst also avoiding Hastings. After Heathfield - he would turn south to Pevensey. If one looks on Google maps - one can see the exact site of the battle on a steep hill just outside the town of Heathfield - (which also would have been the most direct route to Pevensey - from the North - between two rivers) . William's hand was forced here, before Harold could reach his archers at Pevensey.Latest 16.08 .07/03/2021Hi I now understand the previous general misunderstanding of the events of 1066 in the literature to be derived from a mistake in the copying of the earliest map of Hastings.The earliest map of the area is that by John Speed (1610)- from a survey first conducted and commissioned by Queen Elizabeth in 1574. He marks Hastings on his map clearly as 'Hastings Haven inunded' - which must mean that it is purely a tidal haven in contradistinction to those ports which are not wholly tidal and so not marked as such.Subsequently, a much published and influential map, based upon the Speed map - by Robert Morden in 1695 makes the word 'inunded' as it appears on Speed's map, illegible, or as though it reads 'Hastings Haven 'intended'' - the word 'inunded' of itself having fallen out of use by 1695. ....And perhaps being rare geographically - so that the map maker is not familiar with it and so instead writes 'Hastings Haven Intended' -which is meaningless.This mis-translation possibly due to the lack of grammatical rules in early English, leading to Speed using the word 'inunded', -to mean wholly tidal (an unusual word perhaps corresponding to an unusual geography)- and Speed himself possibly copying this from an earlier map. (Surveyors not having time in 1574 to hang around to wait for the tide etc.) (this reflected on the next detailed, fully commissioned map of the area in 1778 by Yeakell - showing tidal lagoons on the beach at Hastings being full after a high tide (see also previous Hastings Observer article Elaine Hammond - Feb 12th) - as they would have appeared to Wiliam in 1066, and which he could use to disembark his fleet and horses (using the techniques I previously describe (scuttling his boats in the lagoons and allowing his horses to swim out (and sawing his boats in two as seen on the Bayeux tapestry etc to allow his horses to walk out etc)Thus, subsequent to the Morden map -with its mistranslation- it has not been understood that Hastings was in history, a purely tidal port, as so described on the early Speed map. Inland there was not a deep-water, none tidal estuary where boats could be moored and come and go relatively freely. For this reason, William's fleet would not be expected by Harold to land at Hastings and have sufficient time to unload in a day. Harold would thus not waste his stretched fleet in blockading Hastings, but rather base some of his fleet to block the deeper water port of Pevensey - and also other parts of his fleet situated blocking the entrance to ports with an estuary from where his deep keeled boats (as exactly shown in detailed illustrations of him at the time - and in which the British had previously successfully repelled a similar Danish Fleet) could launch and be at sea rapidly on the tide needed by William to land, controlling bottlenecks through which William's fleet would have had to pass. Moreover, Pevensey was to the East of Hastings and by the time William had landed - both the tide and the wind would be against Harold's fleet moored at Pevensey. Further , the tidal nature and narrow inlet and outlet through the narrow 'Priory 'Gorge'' (100 foot wide) over which the wide 'Priory Bridge (called something else before the 'priory' was built) was built would mean that structures at the entrance to the 'Priory Stream' would have always have been temporary and technically difficult to build, as they would have had to guard the entrance to the 'Haven' at high tide. This is why the promontory forts built by the Romans, the Saxons and William would be washed away, (The site of a fort on one side of the estuary guarding and using the deep water there would also be exposed to an asymmetrical tidal efflux (outgoing tidal race) which at unusually high tides would wash any structure built on that side of the estuary away. (It would be built on the outside bend of the gully though which the outgoing tidal current would ride up over the bank and structure as the large body of water which had filled the tidal estuary gushed out of the narrow inlet to the estuary through the 'Gorge of the Priory Bridge' inlet/outlet ). The high tide of the purely tidal 'Haven' beyond the 'Priory Bridge' and at the entrance to the 'Priory Stream' - where the Roman fort and any pre-existing structure in 1066 at Hastings, used to unload boats- would not have been believed by Harold to have given William time to unload a conventional fleet of large deep keeled warships - such as those which the British used (shown in early depictions of Harold) before he could be engaged by Harold's large fleet - well armed with archers, as evidenced by their lacking at Senlac (or another site of the battle that might here be indicated) . Harold had believed that he would have had another day for his navy (together with his archers) to arrive at Pevensey or to reinforce or support a fleet that may have been moored there and so oppose William whilst he was exposed during his landing. Giving his army time to march directly from the North and join his navy during the battle. William thus built his fleet to take advantage of the purely tidal nature of Hastings and the shallow beach and geography of lagoons at Hastings as seen on the Yeakell 1778 map. In short, he had outmanoeuvred and outwitted Harold, subsequently blocking the tidal inlet for Harold's deep keeled navy with a Motte and bailey castle on the promontory created by the tidal outlet of the 'priory' stream, in front of the castle hill, and upon which the Romans had prior built a fort. (The site shown on the Hogg/1784/grose1776 print of the ruins at the foot of the castle cliff as per the Hastings Observer article 12th Feb) and in prints and pictures of the late 1700s)I wonder - today - if it is known that the estuary of Hastings was purely tidal - probably causing the America Ground in 1820 and Harold place in 1900s to be flooded. Is Hastings today still vulnerable to such unpredictable, infrequent tidal events derived from the funnelling of water down the North Sea?Do we ultimately have Queen Elizabeth to thank for this knowledge?.One would surmise that Harold was on his way to rendez-vous with his fleet (and so his archers) at Pevensey.He would have been suspicious of the 'Hestengs' (and those from the area of Hastings - who had supplied William with horses and let him land unopposed.) and have travelled north of their territory - skirting it - so to arrive at Pevensey. Thus a search for the battle site would need to consider this.Kind regardsPeter ReynoldsLatest 20.02 ..05/03/2021If it was found out that the Hestengs had conspired with William - and indeed had sold him horses for his cavalry - there would be retribution against them. Hence the Bayeux Tapestry and the much-vaunted landing at Pevensey. And the secret kept for 1000 years. Never trust a Hesteng !!!!PS The land was given back to the nomadic Hestengs, who subsequently paid no taxes - that's why Hestengceastra or Hastings didn't appear in the Doomsday book. Not that it wasn't there. Perhaps other peoples colluded and were likewise excluded from the Doomsday book.Kind RegardsPeter ReynoldsLatest 12.22...05/03/2021Perhaps all the wars in Europe subsequent to the first use of iron, concerned wars between those who could plough and thus settle and farm - and those that had used the land traditionally to herd or 'follow' herding animals e.g. horses. Latest 11.09... 05/03/2021The division between the Hestengs and Harold would arise from the fact that horse herders - or followers - from where the name ''Hesteng' derives , as seen on the Bayeux Tapestry - were not recorded in the earliest records of land ownership prior to 1066 - only half the land was recorded officially - the rest assumed to be barren by historians, - Indeed it was barren as far as Harold was concerned as it probably did not yield taxes- prior to 1066 - and was not considered to belong to the crown.Thus the ancestral name of the Haestingas - as seen in 'Hastingleigh' (Really 'Horse meadow') and other towns with that prefix etc etc to the east of Hastings - was not regarded to derive from its real original routes of 'Horse-people', 'meadow' etc.Perhaps this because Harold had Saxon blood. (An Anglo-saxon. I posit the word Saxon meaning 'Plough' - from Seax - generally a device of iron on a wooden handle - of which a dagger was another example) Angle meaning - like Eng 'meadow from the Danish. Hence anglo-saxon meaning 'Ploughed meadow'. Harold was thus a farmer and the Hestengs 'Herdsmen'. Thus a strong division and source of contention. This might well have been why Harold did not use cavalry and rather the Hestengs supplying William with horses and his cavalry.This could well be the later origin of the dispute of ownership of the land known as the 'America-Ground' -on the exact site of the invasion in 1827-29. A historical claim to land in the area from 'herders'Below I explain the origins of the Battle Of Hastings in terms of a pre-existing feud between farmers (Anglo-Saxons (Anglo-Saxons - meaning 'Ploughed Land or meadoow - hence ;farmers, -and 'herders' (Hestengs - horse followers - literally 'horse meadow ' as clearly written on the Bayeux tapestry. - being their land for grazing )The division between the Hestengs and Harold would arise from the fact that 'horse herders' - or followers - from where the name ''Hesteng' (Hest Danish Horse - Eng - meadow) derives , as seen on the Bayeux Tapestry - were not recorded in the earliest records of land ownership prior to 1066 - only half the land was recorded officially - the rest assumed to be barren by historians, - I pose that Indeed it was barren as far as Harold was concerned as it probably did not yield taxes- prior to 1066 - and was not considered to belong to the crown.Indeed I think it likely that the Hestengs - of danish origin - spoke a diffferent language to Harold - Of German origin) Thus the ancestral name of the Haestingas - as seen also seen in 'Hastingleigh' (Really 'Horse meadow') and a number of other towns with that prefix around to the east of Hastings etc etc to the east of Hastings - was not regarded by Harold - to derive from its real original routes of 'Horse-people', 'meadow' etc. He preferring the word 'Hastings' to 'Hestengs' (as in records of land ownership - coins etc) - so denying the historical claims of the Hestengs to the land.Perhaps this because Harold had Saxon blood. (He - An 'Anglo-Saxon'. I posit the word Saxon meaning 'Plough' - from Seax - generally a device of iron on a wooden handle - of which a dagger was another example (Also Poland - (Danish) Ploughland - acknowledging the influence of the discovery of iron in revolutionizing agriculture through the mechanism of the Plough) _(likewise Saxony etc)) Angle meaning - like Eng 'meadow; from the Danish. Hence anglo-saxon meaning 'Ploughed meadow'. Harold was thus a farmer and the Hestengs 'Herdsmen'. Thus a strong division and source of contention. This might well have been why Harold did not use cavalry and rather the Hestengs supplying William with horses and his cavalry.This could well be the later origin of the dispute of ownership of the land known as the 'America-Ground' -on the exact site of the invasion in 1827-29. A historical claim to land in the area from 'herders' as opposed to farmers.Pevensey would be firmly, Historically under Saxon influence - perhaps Harold had warships there.This is why the landing was at Hestengs and why it is recorded on the Bayeux tapestry as such.This might also be a good reason why William would keep Harold's body and bury it - forever in prison - in the Bailey of his castle - on the promontory beneath Castle Hill. - Probably still there as the records show that the internal wall of 'Hastingceaster' - built on the ruins of the Roman fort - was 1600 meters. (And upon which William built his castle )Kind RegardsPeter ReynoldsLatest 15.19 - - 04/03/2021Eureka moment. England - means both meadowland in Danish and ; ''Followers of land' (ingas - eng ) as in Haestingas. We followed grass, emerging from Ice near its junction with the sea as the Ice melted revealing a grassy promontory as the land rose with the melting of ice on it., The Hestengs followed horses which also followed the grass..... as we moved north west out of Africa.Latest - sent to hastings Museum 14.16 - 04/03/2021I suggested in the 12th Feb issue of the Hastings Observer that William landed his main fleet at Hastings on the site of a Roman fort pictured on a 1776 print by Grose (later Hogg) in front of the castle headland. I have a painting by Joseph Farington showing a 'mound' exactly at the site (1797). A 1798 map of the site (Hastings Observer) shows a structure at the site - with names of Norman origin (eg Boum first seen in 1066.etc). I propose it is the motte of William's castle. - sited at the mouth of the Priory stream - a deep water tidal inlet to a 'Haven'. Further I propose that Hastings derives from the Danish Hest eng - horse meadow. (like Bulvahithe) This is stated on the Bayeux tapestry. 'Hesteng' Ceastra. English at the time had no rules of grammar. I think the word Hestengceastra first appears on the Bayeux tapestry because that's how William experienced it - Trading horses with the people. Whereas to Harold - the name actually meant nothing (as today taken as meaning 'followers of haesta' - who he might be at odds with because they were a gypsy-like people) - appearing on coins of 1050 as Hastingaport and Hastingceastre on Saxon maps. Harold therefore not realize the physical significance of the people's means of subsistence. Perhaps he spoke a different language. I propose therefore that the peoples there were 'Followers of Horses' not 'Followers of Haesta' The people there trading horses (which roamed over the area) from a Roman fort on the site adjacent to the deep water outlet of the Priory Stream (just east of Harold Place) This location and geography is shown clearly on early prints. I suggest the Roman fort sited there for exactly the reason of trading horses (and iron) but being washed away early on by an abnormally high tide (life expectancy 28 -so engineers not have experienced such when building the fort - just as happend on the America Ground in 1820 - Harold place -1900s (the site of Priory outlet adjacent the site of the Roman fort.) If Harold did not use cavalry, the Normans, new to cavalry - might well have been the best customers of the Hestengs and they would have welcomed William. Moreover, because it was not perceived that there was a Roman fort there in 1066 (as Haslam has recently also argued), and because the sheltered part of the beach was shallow and narrow (shown with lagoons on the 1778 Yeakell map (The beach being described as 'Ponbay' or Pond-bay in the 1825 guide). Harold would not expect William to land there. However William - more familiar with building castles - would recognize the suitability of the site and the Roman structure - and so built his fleet to land there. (not to mention that Danes had sacked the place in 1011 - probably selling horses stolen from there to the Normans- proving that horses could be transported across the channel in small boats) In fact they and William using 'the drain-plug' designed integral in the 'pre-stressed' 'skin structure' of Viking long boats to scuttle his boats on the beach and allow his horses to swim out. Also towing them in un-rigged, un-adorned barges to avoid them heeling in wind - and cutting the boats in 2 - the cut boats, without heads on the prow, shown in the Bayeux tapestry as piled in a stack, due to limited lateral space in order for landing his horses. He might have sent some boats to Pevensey as a ruse and telling his own people that he intended to go there so that he was unopposed at Hastings. (Hestengs) (where he was welcomed unopposed) (I posit that to land his horses - he would have had to be sure of being unopposed on landing and this explanation is coherent in this respect. One might add that it appears that 'Henge' is a declension of Hesteng. A small meadow or enclosure for horses. (One might add - England is thus a 'meadowland', and Saxon a plough. Anglo-saxon - a 'ploughed meadow'. (an area of farmers. The plough important - described as using a 'Stone - harder than stone - (Iron.) in a very early text. The words following the discovery and utilization of Iron to plough land - especially land prone to freeze ( Seax describing more generally - a wooden handle on a blade.(possibly Poland a similar Danish name.) I think some of the fort still is just present under the beach to the right of Harold place and slightly under the carpark adjacent the beach. I have contacted Dr Sarah Parcak to see if it can be imaged using infra -red. (you might not need it due to growths being visible on the surface.) Is Harold buried there in the bailey as William said he should be buried on the shore. (William being superstitious wanting to keep him a prisoner until his death. The Bayeux tapestry only being made after William died - as much of it was top secret.One might add that Harold would not have any archers because they manned his navy, possibly together with any cavalry he had - as a mobile response to William's fleet. (like earlier fleets which had intercepted Danes) However William 's tactic outmaneuvered Harold's fleet - to its west - probably also at Pevensey - the wind and falling tide keeping them in harbor and stopping hem from engaging William. Moreover William's fort at the deep water entrance to Priory stream would stop Harold's deep keeled boats from landing there. ...he had shut the back door to his invasion.Kind Regards Peter Reynolds (PhD)04/03/2021I think you maybe able to see the ruins on at least one of your paintings from the early 1800s.Latest 10.41 04/03/2021" The next day Harold's mother, Gytha, sent a message to William offering him the weight of the king's body in gold if he would allow her to bury it. He refused, declaring that Harold should be buried on the shore of the land which he sought to guard. ref William of Poitiers, The Deeds of William, Duke of the Normans (c. 1071)Thus Harold's body might well be buried in Harold's fort on the shore - as shown for the first time here. Story's are told that suggest William was superstitious and visited Ivar Ragnarsson's grave before 1066 to burn his bones in order to dispel a curse put on the ground by Ivar.If this has a grain of truth, perhaps William would bury Harold in the Bailey of his fort on the shore so that during his lifetime - Harold was his prisoner. ....Still there today possibly seen with remote infra-red sensing as the evidence is that water levels have not changed significantly since 1066.Latest 07.58 04/03/2021Indeed - if it was the case that Harold did not use cavalry to fight. as reported , William would have been the 'Hestengs' best customer, making it likely that they welcome him as a leader and welcome his landing in 1066.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Indeed perhaps Harold's archers were being used together with any cavalry that he had, as a mobile fighting force on his large fleet of naval ships, based at the Isle of Wight..A large fleet would have required a lot of archers.William immediately built a 'Motte and Bailey' type castle on the ruins of the Roman fort at 'Hestengs' (possibly William knew that there had been a Roman fort at Hestengs; and as a consequence, was aware of the vulnerability of the site to invasion (the Romans perhaps having done it at exactly the same spot a thousand years prior and William familiar with building castles on such Roman forts and realizing their strategic significance in guarding Harbors - whereas there were no such castles, built after the Romans, in England, guarding ports. Indeed, one might ask had the name 'Hestengceastra' as seen on the Bayeux Tapestry been seen before 1066? - and if it had - did Harold know of it or that it referred to the fact that there had been a Roman Fort there and moreover that it was derived from Danish - meaning 'Horse-meadow , traders, or followers?' If he did know it - might he have not built his own defences on it knowing that the Normans were coming. Also , it seems likely that Danes, recorded as sacking Hastings in 1011 would have stolen horses and traded them with the Normans, so William would have learned that he could land his horses at Hestengs using Viking boats. (the fort and ruins of the castle as shown on the print (12th Feb article - earlier version of the print by Hogg attributed to Grose 1776))Indeed, was there confusion in Harold's mind, as there is today , because of the lack of grammatical rules in the language of the time, to the spelling of 'Hastingceaster' - and therefore its meaning, on Saxon maps of 750 or 'Hastingaport' as appeared on Saxon coins of 1050. Whereas William's perception of the place as 'Hestengceastra' - clear on the Bayeux Tapestry- a place he knew from his strategic interest in, and the local people's interest and farming of horses. Harold in contrast not associating the place with horses, but rather the mining of ores, as is still the case in 2021. William's main concern was to build his castle at the deep-water tidal entrance to the 'Haven' of Hastings through the narrow 'Priory Stream' ((the remains of the 'Motte' or mound as reported in the Observer (12th feb) still visible in prints and paintings of the late 1700s and also possibly the outline of the Bailey following the Roman ruin as seen on the Grose print.)- just as the Romans had previously - as Harold only had deep keeled warships which couldn't land on the shallow beach which William had designed his boats specifically for. (perhaps Harold's cavalry was on those boats, sited and designed as a mobile force to intercept William, and required the site of the Roman fort, if he was going to land his horses to oppose William. - Possibly Harold was marching to meet his cavalry or army at Pevensey when William intercepted him)) William had closed the gates behind himself. Harold's cavalry or army might well be many miles away. The terrain to the west of Hastings unsuitable for their use. William taking a ridgeway to intercept HaroldLatest 08.29 04/03/2021Harold had amassed a large fleet, knowing that William was planning to invade. Harold would have expected William to land at Pevensey; expecting William's fleet there because the Roman fort there was indicative of the potential vulnerability of the site. To the contrary, there did not appear to Harold to have been a Roman fort at Hastings (it had in fact been washed away soon after it was built by an irregular high tide similar to that which washed away 'The America Ground in 1820)). (Even in 2021 it was believed that there had never been a Roman fort at Pevensey because there was no evidence of it (Jeremy Haslam in print) ) So Pevensey, in 1066 would have been an expected site of invasion and Harold would have left ships and men there to either ambush an invader, or defend it. A well organized defense would have made it impossible for William to land his horses or would have delayed or damaged them seriously..- His cavalry were to be decisive in the final battle. William outmaneuvered Harold by producing a shallow keeled fleet, landing his horses using the Viking technology of scuttling his boats in the shallow bay of Hastings and allowing his horses to swim to shore and also sawing his boats in half- as evidenced as a line of crudely made, un-rigged - disposable 'Half-boats - or towed barges - seen in the Bayeux tapestry -(stacked vertically together because the beach was narrow),( to allow his horses to walk onto shore) to land his horses at Hastings. Additionally he had probably purchased the horses for his cavalry from the 'Hestengs' Hest Danish for Horse and Engs Danish for meadow' - (The people considered 'Followers of Horses') - this spelling clear on the Bayeux tapestry, probably in return for a completely unopposed landing at 'Hestengs'. Using their established infrastructure, based on the Roman Ruins, to land his horses - especially landing his larger boats in the deeper gully of the Priory Stream adjacent the ruin of the Roman fort (as shown in the Hogg or Grose print of 1776 (not 1780s as labelled there)) (previous article)William timed his invasion to land at high tide, arriving undetected in the dark. By the time he had landed, the tide was falling. Harold's fleet to the West (believed mainly in the Isle Of Wight) could not respond and get to Harold, either at sea or whilst in the act of landing - as by this time the tide was also falling at Pevensey and the Isle Of Wight so that his main naval fleet of deep keeled boats could not leave. The wind that took William to Hastings would also have been against a navy at the Isle Of Wight or Pevensey trying to intercept his main fleet. William and the English knew that William's army could not be opposed once it had landed.Hence William was believed to have said upon landing. "I have taken England between both of my hands"..referring both to his army on the one hand and his cavalry on the other, but also to the fact that he , himself, soley , had planned and executed the invasion - and so keeping the landing site absolutely secret until he had landed. Indeed he would not want it known as to how he had achieved it - the idea that he was to land at Pevensey perhaps released to the English prior to 1066 and indeed sending an expeditionary force to Pevensey so that he could record afterwards that he had landed there. Not wishing his enemies to know exactly how he had achieved it...until his death. The tapestry only made after his death. The secret having kept subsequently for a thousand years.Latest 20.35 03/03/21Saxon means 'Plough' - the invention of a 'stone harder than stone' - is iron or bronze. Used to make a plough. Becoming symbolic of the people who used it (this amazing tool' )- to farm their land. Anglo - Saxons. Eng is Danish for meadow. Anglo-Saxons 'ploughed' the land (meadow). Hestengs (Haestingas) used the meadow for horses.Makes sense that the Danes should regard the place as Horse-meadow. Hesteng and the Roman fort The fort of the horse-meadow. Or of the Horse-followers.Perhaps England is Danish or Norse.It means Meadowland. Or when the Saxons came ' ploughed land' So regarded by the Norse and Danes from colder perhaps ice-bound lands. Makes sense.Poland is Danish for Plough-land. The plough defined the opening up of countries to agriculture and permanent settlement, especially in northern climes where the land still froze.Latest 14.03 02/03/21The area around the bridge was probably called 'Pond bay' according to wikipedia. 'Ponbay Bridge' for a bridge that used to exist in the area is a corruption of 'Pond Bay' as suggested by Thomas Ross (Mayor of Hastings and author of an 1835 guide book)Which would agree with the Yeakell map.Appropriately William's fort is beneath 'Denmark place'. Bulverhythe - a few miles along the coast is believed to derive from the Danish for 'Port'............The Hestengs were in good company.Latest 08.38 02/03/21The boats shown cut in half in the Bayeux tapestry do not have decorative prows. - They were sacrificed (perhaps used to ritually burn the dead from the battle to come) - the others scuttled and reused. Those used purely for 'one way' horse transport were less demanding to build as they didn't need decoration or a drain plug, possibly towed - then they also wouldn't need rigging - and they wouldn't heel in the wind making it easier for the horses to stand or to support them if they lay down. The Norse/Danes had mastered the transport of large animals in small boats this way and so were powerful traders, (and raiders) affording to build Henges (declension of Hesteng). Perhaps keeping their technical secret of scuttling boats at landings to themselves by killing those who saw it and especially those who could record and write about it (monks and anyone literate) One might suspect that for this reason the Bayeux Tapestry was only produced after William had died - as it revealed some of details of his secret weapon. Prima-facie the Bayeux tapestry shows us boats cut in half and stacked one above the other adjacent to the horses being landed suggestive of a limited width of the beach to land boats. (cut in half to let horses out) Evidence that the beach in the Tapestry was at Hastings - as there was plenty of room at Pevensey. Noting also those boats not having a decorative prow. The prow perhaps an important part of the scuttling tactic - to protect the boats whilst they were left neglected on the beach (rising out of the water upon the falling tide and so protecting them. (an awesome sight for those never having seen it)This kind of also suggests that William would have sent those who were literate to Pevensey. - so that nobody of any intellect could see or record his secret weapon.Kind RegardsLatest 08.23 02/03/21One could say that 'Henges' were more generally centers for trading livestock - where hunter gatherer types first traded with farmers or before that with each other. Permanent meeting places - like caves. Hestengs more generally and most anciently 'followers of herds' - some perhaps following horses from Denmark , as Ice melted and land rose adjacent to the sea - it thus neing warm enough for grass...Latest 07.10 - 02/03/2021Was the White Horse at Uffington - the sign of the 'Followers of the Horse'. (Previously postulated to be the sign of 'The White Horse People' - but perhaps more insightfully - The sign of the 'Followers of The White Horse' ) Perhaps the first horses were white or their stallions white. The founders of Thebes were considered to have rode White Horses. Perhaps other horses followed white horses because they naturally searched for warmer climates due to not absorbing sunlight. Likewise human species and other species. Following grass that emerged after glaciers melted. Could the White Horse at Huffington, either have been seen from an ICE sheet - (Seasonal - linking more permanent glaciers in the east and west - which would arise seasonally & temporarily - those ice sheets being the first to completely disappear at the end of an Ice Age) or have been at the edge of flooded land caused by outflow from the northern Ice Sheet. Visible from on top of the ice. thats where it was meant to be viewed from. Are there so many 'White Horse' Pubs, because, they being the oldest buildings in the country, beckon 'Followers of The White Horse'. The Hestengs. Latest 21.47 - 01/03/2021 Hest Eng also literally translated Horse-Meadow Hestengceastre - horse-meadow fort. This is not too far off. Either way the people at 'Hesteng' affiliating themselves strongly with horses.Latest 01/03/2021 19.25A Henge as in 'stone henge' was a structure for keeping horses - made by 'The Hestengs'. - Henge a declension of Hesteng. In this case Hesteng meaning horse-meadow from the Danish or Norse and thus a declension of Hesteng - a small horse meadow. Was Stone Henge a big horse market? This idea fits with the idea that such structures spread from the North to the south. From Scandinavia.Latest 28 Feb 2021The Hestengs were 'followers of horses' (Danish 'hest' Horse) - who literally followed horses from Denmark - 700000 years ago arriving in Suffolk (corresponding to the oldest remains of horses in the UK 700000 years ago and reaching Hastings 500000 years ago - corresponding to remains of horses found there - 'human species' actually evolving with this westward motion. Those places marked the emergence of grass as Ice sheets melted where liquid water marked warmer land and the peninsular emerged from the sea or from under the Ice. - called 'Hestengs' in 1066 as on the Bayeux tapestry - collaborating with the Romans after their invasion 2000 years ago and remaining to operate their port and business at Hastings in 1066. Possibly selling horses to William for his cavalry and in return using the port to invade as a part of the deal. Their horses roaming the Pevensey levels..Latest 28/02/2021I realized this morning that 'Hest' is Danish for horse. The Danes occupied Hastings in 1011 and the people themselves probably derived from Vikings of the Byzantine empire - so rather than 'followers of Haesta' as described in the current literature - they were in all probability 'Horse-people' (of the Pevensey levels) - given the more recognizable name by William himself as 'Hestengs' (Hestengceastre) (fort of the 'horse - people' or horse'traders' ) at the site..... as recorded on the Bayeux tapestry. So defining the port as suitable to land William's horses in 1066 - a site which would have been known to William prior to 1066 - making up his mind to land his invasion there. (not at Pevensey - although he might have sent some ships there, notably with literates and artists - deliberately so that they could not record the actual landing of his horses at Hastings) - the unique geography of the deeper outlet of the Priory Stream and a shallow sheltered beach (from the White Rock) being a historically developed site for trading and transporting horses by sea.(Stop Press - Grimm's 1784 painting is marked as the view taken from the road 'West Of The Priory Ruins'That means that this painting (viewed from the same direction) is also considered by Grimm as showing the 'Priory Ruins' (as mounds in front of the Houses on the castle headland)- as also shown on the Hogg 1786 lithograph (as also shown in the first image above). ...Also marked as 'The Ruins Of Hastings' on the Yeakell and Gardner 1770's map and marked as 'The Hallaway' ( Haulaway) on the 1798 map on the Hastings Observer website.The Priory was indeed washed away , probably certainly eroded, a process perhaps begun soon after it was built and not inconceivable that the Priory itself was built on top of the ruins of William's first fort - the Priory itself being washed away also as per its records. (perhaps Grimm mistaking the ruins of William's fort for those of the priory.) The site was prone to sporadic infrequent very high tides over the course of years. A particularly high tide was to wash the later 'America ground ' away in 1820, also washing the Priory Bridge away at the same time.It makes sense that the ruins of the Priory would be built on what was left of William's castle - built when he first landed and also at the site of his landing in 1066 and in turn, William's castle would have been built of the ruins of a Roman fort at the site, the footprint of which would look like the outline of the ruin seen in the Hogg 1786 print and also the site marked as 'the Hallaway' on the 1798 map.The Romans liked to build their forts backing onto water, not inconceivable that this one was built on an island in a lagoon shown on the Yeakell map of 1778. Indeed the level of the lagoon perhaps controlled by a sluice from Priory water. So the lagoon itself filled by tidal water - and its level controlled by a sluice from Priory water - effectively a moat - similarly the Roman castle or fort at Pevensey was built backing onto the sea.Evidence that this is the ruin of William's castle at Hastings derives from a 1094 manuscript.The great Council in the time of William Rufus was held in 1094 at Hastings Castle. In attendance were the most powerful men in the land. These included Anselm, Bishop of Canterbury, as well as the Bishops and the new King. This gathering was bought together to dedicate Battle Abbey, as it reached completion 28 years after the Invasion, and after the death of the Conqueror in 1087. The register of Battle Abbey records “The Castle then stood below the cliff, on ground since overflowed by the sea"The term ''below 'the' cliff'' might indicate that the new Hastings castle was built on top of 'the cliff' and his original fort below it.All of this history then is captured in the present painting as well as the actual sea state which William would have experienced landing at this very beach as seen here for the first time. One would add that the footprint also looks like it might have had Roman origins, so in all probability would have existed before William arrived. Indeed it could well have been used as the 'Haulaway' before William arrived and thus there is the distinct possibility that William had seen it being used to land horses before 1066 !!!! .....And thus chose this particular site to land. See an review of this listing published as an article in the Hastings Observer (12th fen (Did William land his horses at Hastings?) Thus this painting is acknowledged as being the only first hand evidence of 'The Battle Of Hastings' - Which makes this painting more important than the Bayeux tapestry - (itself which was made years after the event and thus which only has a tenuous connection to it, undoubtedly influenced by those who paid a large amount for it and their political and strategic motives and affiliations).Thus this is a painting that re-writes history completely, being only a passive witness of the facts of the unchanging geography - observed here in 1797 but which dictated the events as they transpired in 1066. Those events Imbibing William with Norse God-like qualities - the ability to keep a secret. Cunning - stealthy - like LOKI or Ivar Ragnarsson ,and landing at Hastings rather than Pevensey - Pevensey as suggested on the Bayeux tapestry and told in similarly unsubstantiated tales and myth. - those stories and that image not supported by first hand evidence such as this unique painting showing the 'Lay of the Land' as it would have first appeared to William at 10.45am on September 28th 1066 and showing the exact ground upon which he set foot and uttered those historic words 'I Have Taken England With Both Of My Hands'....meaning subsequently that all peoples with English blood in the world are descended from the Normans.The evidence below suggesting he uttered those words facing inland with his army to his left - (westward) and his cavalry to his right on the beach shown in the painting and metaphorically identifying them as his right and left hands. Although simultaneously also declaring his own implicit personal sole and total conception and absolute control of the conquest, not confiding in any of his men from the inception of the plan to its realization at that moment when he first set foot on the beach with both his army - his left hand - and his cavalry - his right hand..One can deduce from this painting that William must have scuttled his boats to the right in this painting, and allowed his horses to swim to shore, possibly being coralled in the structure which appears to the east end of the beach as a mound (The Haulaway) also marked on a 1798 map of the beach.Moreover one can conclude that the 'Drain Plug' found in the hull of Viking boats - was not designed for the purpose of draining the boat - but rather for scuttling the boat to allow horses to be unloaded. (The heads on either prow would appear above the water when the boat had sunk, perhaps deterring the enemy from approaching them as water subsided.) (the plug must have had a crucial role as it would compromise the 'skin structure' of the boat - and the boat could easily be tipped up to drain water - so it must have had another more important purpose)The name William itself (Nordic - Vilhjalm -) deriving from germano-norse origins - could be read - A Desire or will to steer - in particular a boat (Will = desire //// iam - from - Hjalm = to handle - to control (as in the helm of a boat) - An important person to the Vikings. Also more than appropriate for William 1st.If you believe in fate - then this also applies to William Turner - at the helm of the boat in this painting and J M William Turner - desire to steer or handle a paint brush .......and a boat.!!---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(*source see website Historic Hastings )...........{from BRETT} "But the most exciting topic of the year (1829) was the claim made by the Commissioners Of Woods & Forests that on that part of the adjoining (land, to) the western boundary of the town on which some of the Hastings people had built for themselves houses and other properties , under the belief then, that the land had once been over-run by the sea, and for a vast period had been left as dry and desert waste , there was no real owner of it"......"The Messrs. Breeds had made use of a large portion of the ground for their rope-walks, warehouses and other properties......" (see also the 1827 map above - shown with the area marked as 'The old sea beach now covered with buildings") - The present painting could be called 'The 'Old Sea beach' - when it was covered with sea". (before it was reclaimed by the cutting of the cliffs at Cuckoo hill - (as marked so on the map as 'Cut and levelled cliffs')) by Boykett Breeds and the spoil used to re-model, extend the line of the sea-front of Hastings - (resulting today in the continuous line of the sea-front), to create The America Ground.) From this narrative it appears that the beach / sea-front was built up subsequent to the time of the present painting in 1797 by its occupants -especially Boykett breeds. Reclaiming it from the sea. Indeed the map shown above from 1827 shows extensive remodeling - especially cutting of the cliffs of Cuckoo Hill - which Boykett Breeds had purchased. (the rocks then cut might indeed have been the the removal of the very rocks in the foreground of the present painting) THIS LAND RECLAMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN AIDED BY THE FACT THAT OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS, SEA LEVELS ON THE SOUTH COAST HAVE LOWERED, AS THE LAND HAS RECOILED UPWARD FROM THE LAST ICE AGE. THUS IN 1066 THE BEACH AS SEEN IN THE PRESENT PAINTING WOULD BE A MORE LIKELY SCENE AT ANY HIGH TIDE. (ESTIMATES AT PEVENSEY ARE THAT THE WATER WAS 5 METERS HIGHER IN 1066 - ADJUDGED PRIMARILY BY THE SAXON NAMING OF TODAY'S INLAND TOWNS - THEN EXISTING AS ISLANDS). By comparison to Hastings, the remodelling of the south coast by long shore drift, - storm action - and the lowering of sea levels over the last 1000 years means that any potential landing site at Pevensey in 1066 is totally unknown and open to speculation. (today Pevensey being inland) Was it a deep or shallow beach? the answer will remain unknown - and the key question - Did William need to make 700 small boats specifically to land there? as he would at Hastings - the answer seems - unlikely given the unique sea state at Hastings as revealed for the first time in this painting..(Hastings marked as 'Hastings Haven' on 16th century maps of John Speed) Notwithstanding also the other arguments below, made against Pevensey as the actual landing site - and the over-arching evidence that has stood the test of a 1000 years.... that the campaign is still called 'THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS". (Add into this that Hastings might even have had a unique technology to land horses in 1066 as shown above - called 'The Hallaway' - not inconceivably a 'floating dock')FROM THE FIRST HAND EVIDENCE OF THE PRESENT PAINTING (THAT IT IS FIRST HAND - evidenced BY GRIMM'S COMPLIMENTARY VIEW) ONE MAY CONCLUDE - for the first time in history - that......IT IS LIKELY THAT NONE OF THE 7000 THAT LANDED IN 1066 KNEW WHERE THEY WERE GOING TO LAND WHEN THEY FIRST SET OUT - OR EVEN PERHAPS WHERE THEY HAD LANDED (EXCEPT WILLIAM).-NOT ONLY BECAUSE WILLIAM HADN'T TOLD ANYONE WHERE THEY WERE GOING, (OTHER THAN HE WOULD HAVE DELIBERATELY GIVEN OUT FALSE INFORMATION) BUT NONE OF THEM HAD SAILED ACROSS THE CHANNEL IN THE SHALLOW BOTTOMED BOATS WHICH WILLIAM HAD CONSTRUCTED SPECIFICALLY TO LAND ON THE BEACH SHOWN IN THIS PAINTING (AND UNLOAD HIS HORSES FROM - A UNIQUE FEAT). SO IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT THERE WAS AT THE TIME (AS THERE IS NOW) - GREAT CONFUSION AS TO ITS EXACT LOCATION - ESPECIALLY IN THE 'FOG OF WAR' (WHICH WOULD ONLY BE MAGNIFIED THROUGH TIME) ...CONSIDER ALSO THAT IN 1066 AND UNTIL NOW - IT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE BRITISH AN UNLIKELY LANDING SITE, DUE TO ITS SHALLOWNESS (BEING UNSUITABLE FOR DEEP KEELED 'WARSHIPS') - TESTAMENT TO WHICH - HIS LANDING WAS UNOPPOSED - EVEN THOUGH THE 'BRITISH' MUST HAVE KNOWN THE NORMANS WERE COMING FROM SMOKE PRODUCED FROM FIRES TO STEAM PLANKS - VISIBLE FROM THE ENGLISH COAST FOR ALMOST A YEAR PRIOR TO 1066. However a shallow beach as shown here in farington's painting would convey a significant advantage for a landing if one used concomitantly, shallow keel boats, as it would extend the time around high tide over which boats could be landed - also meaning that they could be condensed over a narrower width of beach - more easily defended if opposed. This indeed was a crucial factor in deciding both the beaches and time of landing around high tide on D-Day 1944. On that occasion men were landed 3 hours before high tide. Key to this would be the contour of the beach. ..The beach shown here and in Grimm's complimentary 1784 painting is shallow. Further along on the other side of the castle - the beach is stepped and steep at high tide. perhaps also at Pevensey. That would be OK for deeper keeled boats but it would reduce the time available for unloading and ideed perhaps horses cold not be unloaded from deep keeled boats quickly, if at all. Conversely one may propose that on a calm beach such as that shown - boats could be temporarily scuttled and the horses let swim to shore.THUS THE SUCCESS OF WILLIAM'S LANDING WAS IN ITS ABSOLUTE SECRECY prior to 1066 IN RESPECT OF THE LANDING SITE (PERHAPS HIS SUBTERFUGE) , ITS TECHNICAL INNOVATION AND CHOICE OF LANDING SITE - FOR WHICH HE NEEDED A FLEET WITH SHALLOW KEELS....SO THAT HE COULD LAND HIS HORSES (and perhaps the technology of the 'Halloway' shown and discussed below) .......AND THE SITE BEING A COMPLETE SURPRISE - NOT ONLY TO THE ENEMY - BUT TO HIS OWN ARMY ! - SO THAT HIS LANDING WOULD BE UNOPPOSED - AND IN THE ROUND - THE ONLY WAY HIS LANDING COULD HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL WOULD HAVE BEEN IF HE COULD LAND UNOPPOSED - OTHERWISE HE COULD NOT HAVE LANDED HIS HORSES - AN EXTREMELY DELICATE OPERATION (AND UNTIL TODAY AND -THIS PAINTING- UNFATHOMABLE) AND A POTENTIAL ACHILES HEEL IN HIS PLAN - (REQUIRING THE PERFECT LANDING SITE) - THE HORSES WHICH WERE TO BE HIS MAIN WEAPON.Indeed nor would he have wanted anybody to know where the landing site was subsequent to the battle - as it was clearly a weak spot - and others would attempt the same invasion against him. Hence his building of a castle at Hastings. - William's landing had revealed a weak spot - even to the point that 700 years later - its perceived weakness demonstrated by the fact that guns were mounted defending the same beach despite its strategic insignicance at that time (due to the development of cannon which were used to bombard towns from the sea -before any landing).EVERYTHING POINTS TO THE BEACH SHOWN IN THIS PAINTINGI wonder - if the structure seen on the present painting, seen as a mound - in front of the houses on the castle headland in the present painting - also seen on a map of 1798 (SHOWN ABOVE AND FOUND ON Hastings Observer website) and in Grimm's 1784 painting, - and marked as a square structure on lithographs of the area looking down from the castle - from 1780-90 by Hogg (shown above)- and called on that 1798 map 'The Hallaway' (Haulaway) was in fact originally of William 1st's temporary construction - 700 years prior - to unload his horses !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (In the 1801 lithograph above - a horse is seen pulling a cart away from it - so the ground is good for horses) - In 1798, the structure used to service the lime kilns situated behind the buildings shown. - and as described in Brett - as used for unloading 3 tonnes regularly on the beach!COULD IT HAVE EXISTED BEFORE WILLIAM ARRIVED -perhaps more than likely?As a form of lock complex with different levels? Possibly moved and adjusted to sea level as it lowered over 700 years. A lithograph from 1801 - as shown - implies a multi-level or stepped harbour - the enclosed area perhaps allowing boats to remain level whilst unloaded. The largest building on the headland perhaps a warehouse. The area indeed marked as a pair of lagoons on the beach on the 1770 map of Yeakell & Gardner. This exact area on the Yeakell map shown as lagoonal water is where the present painting also shows the calm area of sea upon which the boat is floating. (not to mention that on the 1595 and 1600s 'Speed' maps of the area -it is known as 'Hastings Haven')One might also notice that on the Yeakell map, the beach where the Halloway is marked on other maps and lithographs, the area is marked specifically as 'Ruins Of Hastings'. (not being specific about the castle and the marks being on the beach rather than the headland where the castle is.)WILLIAM HAVING SEEN THIS COMPLEX ON HIS PRIOR VISIT TO THIS COUNTRY AND ADAPTED THE STRUCTURE or more importantly adapted his fleet - TO UNLOAD HIS HORSES on it? (the equivalent of a 'Mulberry Harbor') thus, its existence prior to 1066 making William's mind up as to a future potential site where he could land his cavalry!!! Perhaps the only place he could have landed his calvary! Noting also that next to it on the 1798 map is marked a 'Boum' - presumably for lifting material from boats resting on the 'Hallaway'. It might also have been there in 1066. Perhaps a technology now lost to time when loads are no longer landed on shallow tidal beaches or unique to the geography of this particular headland? It has been suggested that William learned how to load and unload his horses from mediterranean armies - but there they would have had a tideless sea and gently sloping shores to deal with. (as shown in the present painting)THE IDEA THAT WILLIAM WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO KNEW WHERE THE LANDING SITE WAS before he set out, also, as well as being reminiscent of Viking cunning, and historical battle tactics,, RESONATES WITH THE IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO THE TURNING POINT ACTUALLY IN THE BATTLE AT SENLAC (assuming it was there) - WHEN IT WAS BELIEVED BY HIS OWN MEN THAT WILLIAM WAS DEAD - CAUSING PANIC AND A PART OF HIS OWN ARMY TO FLEE - and a turning point in the battle. THIS IS TESTAMENT TO AN IMPLICIT - BLIND - TRUST IN WILLIAM'S LEADERSHIP - AND ONE COULD GO FURTHER -.... A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF HIS ARMY WERE NOT BATTLE HARDENED SAILORS - in fact - a majority NOT SAILORS AT ALL - YET THEY FOLLOWED HIM BLINDLY ACROSS THE ENGLISH CHANNEL IN SMALL BOATS TO AN UNKNOWN DESTINATION - AND HE HAD DELIVERED THEM SAFELY THUS FAR - GIVING THEM A CONFIDENCE IN SUBSEQUENT BATTLE - WHICH WOULD VERY EASILY BE SHATTERED IF THEY THOUGHT HIM DEAD....THIS EXPLAINING THE EXACT PATTERN OF THE BATTLE AT SENLACThe idea that only William knew where he was going to land is in keeping with previous Viking battles and the god-like status and cunning of Viking leaders such as Ivar The Boneless - Ivar Ragnarsson - who declared himself a god. _________________________________________________________ SO THIS PAINTING IS THUS IN EFFECT A NEW and EQUALLY UNIQUE 'BAYEUX TAPESTRY' WHICH unlike 'The Bayeux Tapestry' IS PAINTED FROM FIRST HAND EVIDENCE OF THE SITE OF (The Campaign of) 'THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS' (THAT IT IS FIRST HAND EVIDENCE IS SHOWN BY COMPARISON WITH THE SIMILAR PERSPECTIVAL 1784 painting by Hieronymous Grimm (as shown) of the adjacent beach to this landing site of William - there depicted with the same peripheral buildings as a reference comparison and complimentarily extending the present scene to low tide) (Thus the value of this painting as first hand evidence is inestimable given that in essence the Bayeux Tapestry itself was a political document, (costing a huge amount to produce))ALL ACCOUNTS OF 'THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS' WILL NOW, _ SUBSEQUENT TO THE REVELATION OF THIS PAINTING, HAVE TO REFER TO IT AS A FIRST HAND SOURCE OF EVIDENCE OF THE 'BATTLE OF HASTINGS' - IT IS A SEMINAL SOURCE OF INFORMATION _UNOBTAINABLE ANYHERE ELSE_putting its owner in a unique position. The whole history of the country for a 1000 years pivoting on this one strategically significant point, here mapped in three dimensions together with a sea state as would have been seen at the landing in 1066. The image explaining how and why William could plan and name his campaign or invasion as 'The Battle of Hastings', a year ahead, and build his ships to suit the site and its sea approach as shown. (Look closely at the long shallow keeled boats on the shore - they even have logs next to them for launching as was the method of launching Viking long boats such as those of William 700 years earlier) And how he could keep his 1066 approach secret despite the fact that the British could see fires for steaming the planks of William's boats from their own shores and so knew the size of his 700 ship armada before it arrived. !!! The secrecy of his landing remaining, even until the revelation of this painting, a thousand years later. Such secrecy evidenced at the time by his unopposed landing, even though the 'British' must have been fully aware of the size of his fleet and have been prepared for it. (unfortunately expecting it to land at Pevensey - due to mis-information spread by William) This is the obvious reason as to the siting of the castle seen here on the headland above and overlooking the beach. Why would William have landed at Pevensey? - when there was a castle defending it and its occupants knew he was coming? If it's occupants were receptive to William - why the need to build a 700 ship armada from scratch??? The beach shown in this painting was too shallow for British boats, which were rather built with deeper hulls and keels to withstand landing roughly on steeper beaches - so the beach here pictured was undefended and unpopulated and for exactly the same reason this was also the case in 1797. William thus built his armada with shallow keels in order to land on this particular, specific beach - making smaller more numerous boats - perhaps he could have arrived in 50 much larger boats at Pevensey - rather than the 700 small craft he came in - unexpectedly on behalf of the British - at Hastings, who simply did not have, or have need for this technology and would expect an invasion from a beach with deeper water and from larger 'ships of war' - - The landing then exactly as it is seen in this painting together with similar long shallow keeled boats to those of William 700 years prior, parked on the shore (and with logs next to them for rolling them into the sea as was also the way Viking long boats were launched 700 years previously) - Exactly similar to those built by William for the purpose of landing on this particular terrain in this predictable sea state at the full moon spring tide of September 27th 1066 at 10.40 am. Thus William won 'The Battle of Hastings' with the 'surprise' technology of his boats (from which he could also land horses when landed on this particular beach), and this all explains exactly why William had to build an 'all-new' bespoke armada from scratch over a period of 9 months.THUS _HERE WE SEE THE HISTORY OF THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS RE-WRITTEN ACCORDING TO THE DISCOVERY OF THIS FIRST HAND EVIDENCE . ESPECIALLY ILLUSTRATING THE IMPORTANCE OF WILLIAM'S TECHNOLOGY TO THE SUCCESS OF HIS CAMPAIGN FOR THE FIRST TIME.Appropriately and fortunately - unlike the Bayeux Tapestry - the image now resides in the UK !!!!! - I wonder if the French will make a raid for it??? A unique image...... pivotal at the inception of modern Hastings, simultaneously where William 1st, first stepped foot 1000 years ago (regarded so in 1797 - when it mattered, and was then self-evident as revealed in the detailed landscape of the present painting for the first time - rather than merely an academic topic of speculation - as manifest in 1797 by the mounting of 3 cannon at that time solely to cover the beach as it is here shown for the first time, despite its evident strategic insignificance in 1797 - as also seen here for the first time in respect of its total lack of population).....AND ALSO INCREDIBLY A PORTRAIT OF JMW TURNER AND HIS FATHER IN 1797 BY JOSEPH FARINGTON (THE ACCURATE MILITARY ARTIST) AT THE BEACH (DEFENDED BY GUNS IN 1797...THEN THOUGHT TO BE THE SITE OF POTENTIAL INVASION BY NAPOLEON - the guns placed there not because it was a strategically important site and totally lacking population as shown, but only because of its symbolic significance in as much as it was then regarded as the beach at which WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR LANDED IN 1066 (certainly by the military commander of the site in 1797 - with his unique contemporary knowledge of it [now lost until the revelation of this painting]) - AND SO THE BEACH GIVING ITS NAME TO WILLIAM'S CAMPAIGN AS 'THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS' - and so explaining the modern day conundrum as to why and how 'THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS' got its 1000 year old name (and if you were the commander in charge of defending the area in 1797 - the precise manner and location of William's 1066 feat would have weighed heavily on your thinking and been brought into sharp focus, rather than be a matter of purely academic speculation as it has become today) - as revealed here at a high Spring tide as it would have been in September 1066, shown for the first time in 1000 years in the present painting. This image the first and only - 'first hand evidence' of William's landing site and hence of 'The Battle of Hastings' - the site - shown only and uniquely in this painting - to be lost forever beneath the reclaimed land of 'The America Ground' and subsequently modern Hastings. In Feng Shui, the painting showing and fundamentally being a part of, connected to, a highly auspicious occasion and location in time and space of a nation's identity over a 1000 years and as a consequence reflecting that energy..It being radiated by the eloquently depicted centrally located figures within a balanced, harmonious landscape, the humps of a dragon seen to the left and north of the castle and its tail mapping east-west. His scales the castle and head the cliffs. Click images to enlarge Description Whilst this painting follows the template of all of Joseph Farington's many hundreds of watercolor landscapes (see ebay listings for example), one can see by the very careful drawing and detail of the characters as compared to the details of it's landscape and by their central location - especially the position, nearer and central, of William Turner (possibly his birthday) and bright colors, - that the painting is fundamentally intended as a portrait - totally out of keeping with any of his hundreds of other similar paintings.Whilst I suggest below that this is because the subjects are JMW Turner and his father, of great import to Farington at the time of the painting in 1797, and the only individuals who could distract Farington away from the detail of his landscape in this particular manner, the painting nevertheless is also centrally focused, in time and space, upon a beach at Hastings which was considered belatedly a potential landing site for a French invasion by Napoleon and exactly at the site of guns installed weeks from the time of the painting... Placed to defend the beach as it is seen here, at a high spring tide, from an invading force - (and therefore the highest tide of the month) -. I would suggest - this too is exactly the same beach that William would have landed on in 1066 and for exactly the same geographical reasons that Farington is demonstrating here. (*Hastings possibly significantly to the West of where it is today in 1066 as there was no evidence of the settlement acrually on the hill of White Rock and to the east in 1797- although in 1066 the nearest town to the beach.) (whilst the 'Priory Stream' might have been navigable in 1066 - 700 boats needed the shallow, calm sloping beach shown in this painting, first to land horses and also the lower beach below it and to seaward at low tide as shown by Hieronymous Grimm in 1784 (as shown) to accommodate the whole fleet quickly. However and paradoxically - the beach itself in 1797 was of no strategic significance, (in the same way that it was perceived by the British in 1066 - due to its shallowness - not suitable for large ships of war), unlike Hastings around the corner - which had its own guns, therefore I believe the belated positioning of guns to defend it on the occasion of this painting (at White Rock), demonstrating that the beach was then regarded significantly, primarily as the historically significant landing site of William in 1066, the guns placed on the headland shown (from which the painting was painted) not because of the beaches' strategic significance in 1797 - the town of Hastings could be bombarded into submission from the sea - but rather I suggest that it was at that time regarded as the beach William landed on in 1066 and as such, as symbolic and totemic to the French as to the British alike. Contrarily the beach was strategically significant in 1066 - to William - due to its shallow, long, sheltered shore - crucially upon which horses could be landed, although clearly the British had not foreseen that William would land in many small boats on this particular shallow beach and had not perceived the strategic significance of the beach as it is seen above. However the shallow beach would not be a factor in 1797 as the French had adopted the tactic of bombarding towns into submission, from the sea. (see Leon Morel Fatio's paintings of the French bombardment and invasion of North Africa) The painting is thus the only first hand evidence we have of such a beach as it would have existed in 1066. And thus it is , as well as being a unique portrait of Turner and his father, a unique depiction explaining exactly why the 'campaign' I propose in 1066 was called by William, 'The Battle of Hastings'. The victory won when William landed his horses on land, here, - a feat never again matched. This painting above any criticism that might be leveled at artists 'whims' or the imaginations of other artists of the day that might have have been subjective fancy and therefore this painting's key attribute, its accuracy - which can be seen by detailed comparison with Grimm's 1784 painting..Thus this painting is now imprinted in the fabric of what is considered as 'The Battle Of Hastings',Although all seemingly incredible - it is nevertheless , what it is - and such observations all couched in the very accurately rendered detail of the painting by the military artist Farington from a time before the scene and landscape was later modified to create ground to build on and protect it from such tidal inundation - as it is seen in the present painting, with the creation of the 'America ground', (primarily by rope-makers who needed a long run (200 fathoms of flat ground).. - the site of the landing of 1066 lost beneath. (The beach of the America Ground, with its sea-front 'rope-walk' actually depicted in paintings of the early 1800s as straight, steep and battered by waves, contrasting with the shallow, calm 'half-moon' bay and beach as shown in the present painting - an image supported by that of Grimm's painting at low tide of 1784 (shown). The 1827 map of the America ground refers to the area as "The old Sea Beach - now with buildings on" - and in court proceedings of 1829 to evict residents of the America Ground, the defense declared that the land had once previously been under the sea but had " for a vast period been left as dry and desert waste"- (in 1800 the life-expectancy was 34 - so the scene of the present painting, 32 years prior to the trial, would indeed have been a 'vast period' - i.e beyond living memory in 1829) So here, in the present painting, we see the area of dry land - as shown on maps of the 1820s and as described in the 1829 court proceedings, then with a town on it - rather here, shown with the sea over it !! - exactly as described in the court proceedings, and the sea also covering the adjacent area to the East of 'The America Ground' - marked as the town of Hastings on the same maps - (on the other side of the Priory Stream) - Moreover in the present painting boats moored on the beach indicate the permanence of the high waterline in 1797.. Interestingly this all implies that the beach itself was built up by its occupants over the early 1800s - and one would suppose especially by 'Messrs Breeds & CO' - who according to 'Historic Hastings' and evidenced in trial proceedings -had a company making rope (as well as property developing) and needed a stretch of dry land of at least some 400 yards (150 -200 'fathoms') upon which to manufacture it and who laid claim to much of the land referred to as 'The America Ground'. - - In fact it is recorded that Priory Bridge - on the higher part of the beach as shown in the present painting - itself, was washed away by the sea in 1820 and a new brick bridge built to replace the old wooden one. [This actually a reflection - not so much of the height of the tide - but rather the extent to which the land -called 'The America Ground' had been artificially built up- reclaimed - above sea level - so that the normal tide pushed water up and over it]. Properties built on the beach were likewise washed away by the sea. Thus 'The America Ground' as it existed between 1800 and 1834 would also have covered the shallow beach of 1066 - as seen here for the first time..It also means that not only is modern Hastings beneath the sea as it appears in the present painting but so too was the land on which the 'The America Ground' before it had been built. (the latter itself reclaimed from the sea) [ likely that the 'crown' had let the reclaimed beach be privately developed and seeing that it had survived inundation - decided to claim the land for itself as it became more valuable also with the development of Hastings ]Over the last 1000 years sea levels have been receding on the south coast due to 'bounce-back, from the last ice age - and this would aid any such land reclamation - and would also mean the scene as shown in the present painting would have been more likely at any high tide in 1066. Likewise I have found another picture of the Hastings end of the beach with the tide touching the houses seen on the castle headland from about 1800. So the scene as presented in the present painting - with what would become the America Ground and subsequently modern Hastings, was indeed covered by water before the early 1800s as described in the trial proceedings above and as described as the 'Old Sea Beach' on the map of the America Ground. This unique accurate painting by Joseph Farington in 1797 demonstrates now for the first time in 1000 years exactly why The Battle of Hastings was called the 'Battle of Hastings' - William would have had to have known a year before the conquest - exactly which beach he was going to land his horses on - and he would have assembled his cavalry and designed and built his boats and armada to land on a specific beach. Exactly as D-Day -1944. The present painting is unique in being the only first hand evidence of that beach as it existed in 1066. And it is 'Hastings Beach'. (but in 1797 - at the time of the present painting - it was much different than it is now (under the modern town of Hastings)- although the same in 1797 as it was in 1066)Hence the 1000 year old name of William's campaign, as it was given that name a year before William's landing. It was going to be 'THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS'just as the 'Invasion or Battle of Normandy' in 1944 was always going to be given that name from its planning a year before - both campaigns recognizing their key goal as landing their army on the beach. William especially so - if he could land his super weapon - of the cavalry -technically more difficult than anything achieved in 1944 and giving his army greater superiority than anything the allies had in 1944 over their enemy. One might add that only William and his closest aide would have known his target beach. It might well have been that the fleet had to follow him to the beach, such was the level of secrecy required. Much is made of the fact that he stopped half-way to eat his 'breakfast'. . I suggest he probably had to, simply because those behind him did not know where they were going - but were rather following him. In all likelihood mis-information about the landing site would have been spread widely. Pevensey for example - as seen on the Bayeux Tapestry- constructed years after the event in England - the target of such mis-information from William's camp in Normandy. - After all - the English would have been aware of the construction of 700 ships across the channel for over a year- highly likely it could have been viewed first hand from their own shores due to the requirement of steaming the boats planks- a process which would produce immense amount of smoke! Indeed - such rumors - spread by William's sympathizers around Pevensey - might have resulted in Pevensey being defended in 1066 - allowing an unopposed landing on the beach shown at Hastings. One would have to ask why such a telegraphed invasion for 9 months, was landed totally unopposed. Most likely the success of mis-information - a success manifest in all of the many subsequent opposing and conflicting accounts of the campaign. One might add that nobody would have seen William's fleet arrive from the east in 1066 as Hastings was then to the west of the landing site - (contemporary accounts indicating that they sailed beneath cliffs) whereas it would have been spotted in Hastings if its intended site was Pevensey. I suggest 1797 and the potential invasion by Napoleon was an an acid test - of the likely invasion site by William in 1066 and the mounting of guns on the headland shown here was proof of the perceived significance of the site - as shown here for the first time in 1000 years. Prior to 1790's the site had been inaccessible but the opening of new roads allowed Turner and Farington access to it from London in a day. TODAY IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THERE WAS A BATTLE OF HASTINGS IN 1066 WHICH WAS PIVOTAL IN CHANGING THE COUNTRY. HOWEVER THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE CASE IF IT WAS NOT FOR THE DEPICTION OF THE EVENT IN THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY. THIS IMAGE HAS, like the name of the battle as 'The battle of Hastings' GRIPPED THE PUBLIC PSYCHE SINCE 1066. INDEED OUR PERCEPTION OF THE EVENT HAS CHANGED AS THE TAPESTRY ITSELF HAS BEEN STUDIED IN MORE DETAIL WITH MODERN METHODS and the origin of the image itself has been questioned. THE ICONIC IMAGE - AND TURNING POINT IN THE COUNTRY'S HISTORY - FOR LONG PORTRAYED IN THE 1000 YEARS SINCE THE BATTLE - OF HAROLD BEING KILLED BY AN ARROW THROUGH HIS EYE HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE UNLIKELY WITH THE CLOSER STUDY OF THE TAPESTRY WITH MODERN METHODS. IT HAS BECOME EVIDENT THAT THE TAPESTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED AND CHANGED OVER TIME. - THUS NO LONGER QUITE THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE BATTLE. IT IS and was ALSO FUNDAMENTALLY LIMITED BY THE LACK OF PERSPECTIVE - a technique in art not invented until the Renaissance.IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUGGESTED THAT AT THE TIME OF THE BATTLE - THE BATTLE ITSELF WAS NOT EVEN REGARDED AS IMPORTANT - AS IT LACKS RECORD IN LITERATE ESTABLISHMENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY AT THE TIME.THE QUESTION THUS ARISES - HAVE GENERATIONS BEEN MISLED OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS. WAS THERE EVEN A BATTLE OF HASTINGS THAT JUSTIFIES THE NAME.? GIVEN ALSO THAT IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED THAT WILLIAM FIRST LANDED AT PEVENSEY AS RECORDED ON THE WRITING OF THE TAPESTRY ITSELF , PEVENSEY quite a few miles from Hastings, AND THE BATTLE itself TOOK PLACE MILES TO THE NORTH OF HASTINGS, at or around 'Battle'. AFTER ALL - IT HAD ONLY BECOME TO BE KNOWN AS 'THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS' SOME TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE EVENT. - IN 1086.IN MODERN TIMES ONE OF THE KEY PROBLEMS WITH IDENTIFYING THE BATTLE - AS 'THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS', IS THAT IT HAS BEEN THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS NOT A RELIABLE LANDING SITE FOR WILLIAM'S ARMADA CLOSE TO OR ACTUALLY AT HASTINGS. IF THERE WAS SUCH A LANDING SITE - ONE COULD SAY WITH CERTAINTY THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN WILLIAM'S INTENDED TARGET FROM THE OUTSET OF PLANNING THE CAMPAIGN - WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIS SHIPS OVER A PERIOD OF NINE MONTHS - LIKELY THAT THE SHIPS THEMSELVES WERE DESIGNED TO LAND ON ONE PARTICULAR BEACH - BECAUSE THE KEY STRATEGIC REQUIREMENT OF HIS ARMADA WOULD HAVE BEEN THE UNLOADING OF HORSES - AS SUCH A MOUNTED CAVALRY WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPENSIVE AND LOGISTICALLY DIFFICULT TO SOURCE, AND EVEN TRAIN - THEIR LANDING REQUIRING A SHELTERED SHALLOW SLOPING BEACH - AND FUNDAMENTAL THEREFORE TO HIS WHOLE CONQUEST PLAN OVER MORE THAN A YEAR.ERGO HE MUST HAVE HAD A PARTICULAR, INTENDED LANDING SITE IN MIND BEFORE HE STARTED -EVEN BUILDING HIS NAVY.THUS I SUGGEST THE PRESENT PAINTING IS THE ONLY FIRST HAND ACCOUNT AND EVIDENCE OF A BEACH ON THE SOUTH COAST WHICH WOULD HAVE FITTED WILLIAM'S PLANS FROM THE OUTSET. THUS EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHY THE CAMPAIGN WAS KNOWN FROM THE OUTSET AS THE 'BATTLE OF HASTINGS' - JUST AS D-DAY WAS KNOWN AS THE INVASION OF NORMANDY - BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE BATTLE AND WHY THE NAME HAS PERSISTED FOR A 1000 YEARS.THE LOGIC FOR THIS CAN ALSO BE SEEN THROUGH THE TELESCOPE OF HISTORY - IN PARTICULAR THAT OTHER SUCH INVASIONS FROM LATER TECHNICALLY SUPERIOR FORCES WOULD BE DEFEATED BY THE WEATHER (THE SPANISH ARMADA AND THE TWO FRENCH ATTEMPTS - NOT EVEN RECORDED IN 1796 AND 1797, ALTHOUGH SIGNIFICANTLY ARMED FOR PURPOSE WHEN THEY SET OUT), ALL DEFEATED BY AN INABILITY EVEN TO MAKE LANDFALL - THE SEA-STATE AND BEACHES HAD DEFEATED THEM - THAT COULD MUCH MORE EASILY HAVE BEEN A FATE THAT COULD HAVE BEFALLEN WILLIAM - with 700 years less technology to rely on and with exactly the same goal in mind, - IN ADDITION, A WILLIAM WHO RELIED ON HORSES (AS CLEARLY SHOWN IN THE BAYEAUX TAPESTRY)- RATHER THAN THE CANNON AND GUNS OF LATER INVADING FORCES. HORSES THAT SOMEHOW HAD TO BE SET ASHORE.I POSE NOW FROM THIS SIMPLE POWERFUL LOGISTICALLY BASED ARGUMENT THAT THE 'BATTLE OF HASTINGS' GAINED ITS NAME NOT FROM ANY PARTICULAR BATTLE BUT FROM WILLIAM'S NAME FOR THE CAMPAIGN - AND HIS TARGET FROM THE OUTSET - 9 MONTHS BEFORE HE LEFT NORMANDY AND PROBABLY MUCH LONGER IN THE PLANNING, HE MAKING SHIPS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO LAND -ESPECIALLY HIS HORSES -ON THE PARTICULAR BEACH as shown for the first time in the present painting - it also showing similar boats still being used on the beach in 1797 . THIS INDEED ANSWERS ANOTHER CONUNDRUM AS TO THE NATURE OF THE INVASION. WILLIAM HAD TO BUILD A NAVY FROM SCRATCH TO DO IT. HE DID NOT START WITH A FLEET OF SHIPS - AS HAD THE FRENCH AND SPANISH LATER. I SUGGEST HE BUILT THIS FLEET SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF LANDING HIS HORSES ON THIS SPECIFIC BEACH. BOTH IN TERMS OF DESIGN AND SIZE. HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN EXACTLY THE SIZE OF THE BEACH AND THE STEADY SEA STATE AT HIGH TIDE - EXACTLY AS SEEN IN THE PRESENT PAINTING, ARISING FROM THE SHELTER OF THE WHITE ROCK AS SHOWN IN GREAT DETAIL FRAMING THE PRESENT PAINTING.THE PROBLEM IN ENVISAGING 1066 FROM A MODERN PERSPECTIVE IS THAT THE SOUTH COAST HAS CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE 1066 , NOT ONLY WITH NATURAL PROCESSES SUCH AS LONG-SHORE DRIFT OF SHINGLE, ACCENTUATED BY TUMULTUOUS STORMS WHICH BOTH WIPED OUT TOWNS AND CUT TOWNS - PREVIOUSLY PORTS, COMPLETELY OFF FROM THE SEA, BUT ALSO THE SEA-FRONT AND BEACHES AT HASTINGS HAVE BEEN CHANGED BEFORE THERE WAS ANY RECORD OF WHAT THE BEACHES WERE LIKE BEFORE THE MODIFICATIONS.I SHOW HERE - IN THE PRESENT PAINTING A UNIQUE AND ACCURATE PICTURE OF A BEACH AT OR CLOSE TO THE HASTINGS OF 1066 TOGETHER DEPICTED WITH THE SHELTERED CALM FROM THE ENGLISH CHANNEL as evidenced by the boats heeling in the channel - WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IN 1066 FOR WILLIAM TO LAND -ESPECIALLY HIS HORSES. IN MANY WAYS IT IS AN UNUSUAL PAINTING, OTHER ARTISTS HAVE PAINTED HASTINGS FROM THE WHITE ROCK (BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED IN 1834) (SEE ALSO GRIMM'S 1784 PAINTING SHOWN ETC) - SO TO EMPHASIZE ITS DRAMATIC ROCKS TO SEAWARD) - however none showing the contrasting calm of the bay at high water -this, at first sight would have been like a red rag to a bull for any invading force - perhaps it is shown here at a spring tide. (Was the invasion a actually spring tide? - late september does seem an unusual selection given the potential for rough seas - the 1066 invasion possibly needing uniquely a 'Spring tide in the dark' - to maintain secrecy? (It appears that indeed the invasion was believed to be a Spring Tide - full moon at Pevensey. In fact the tide at this beach would have been a matter of minures later due to its position west of Pevensey) ) BUT I SUGGEST FARINGTON'S PAINTING - ALTHOUGH ONE MIGHT THINK IT A PORTRAIT OF THE TWO SITTERS - IS ACTUALLY EQUALLY AN ACCURATE PAINTING BY A MILITARY ARTIST OF A BEACH WHICH Was perceived by the military commander at the time to be in NEED of DEFENDING FROM MILITARY INVASION BY NAPOLEON- AND IT SHOWS PRECISELY WHY CANNON WERE SITED AT THE LOCATION OF THE ARTIST) MOREOVER - THE HEADLAND FROM WHICH THE BEACH AND ITS SHELTER FROM THE CHANNEL, IS UNIQUELY VIEWED IN THE PAINTING, WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT ALSO IN 1066 AS EVIDENCED FROM A MAP OF THE PLACE reconstructed to show the likely detail of the coast in 1250 (not shown but available online). THE HEADLAND PROTECTING IT FROM STORM AND LONG-SHORE DRIFT AND THUS WOULD HAVE SHELTERED THE BEACH FROM THE ENGLISH CHANNEL IN 1066 EXACTLY AS SHOWN ACCURATELY IN THE PRESENT PAINTING OF 1797. The beach might not have been used by deep keel boats because it was shallow, hence Hastings, relying on fishing might have grown elsewhere - however - long shallow draft boats - such as those William would have used, are shown here landed, indeed stacked on the shore in the present painting of 1797 just as seen in the Bayeux tapestry.Thus I contend that William's intended conquest - planned for over a year - would from the outset be aimed at the beach shown in the present painting - arguably the site called Hastings in 1066 or Hastings being the closest point on any map from 1066, which William could strategically and logistically focus his conquest on. Indeed William would surely have regarded the beach itself as 'HASTINGS' even if the settlement itself was not situated exactly on the beach at that time.This painting demonstrates in particular the sheltered sea-state contrasted with the simultaneously blustery English channel with boats heeling toward the top right, and shallow sloping beach required for William to land his horses. Indeed it gives much more information in regard to the circumstances of the landing than does the Bayeux Tapestry and thus giving more useful and complimentary information regarding the conquest in many respects than the tapestry itself. It of itself would have been invaluable to military planners siting the guns on the headland shown weeks after the present painting was made and defending the same beach from an invasion by Napoleon. The tapestry itself which might have been reconstructed from second-hand accounts and indeed the art of the day in 1066 - itself lacking the perspective developed by 1797 - a perspective which could convey the precise 'Lay of the Land'. This painting is thus the only first hand evidence of a site that William could aim his invasion at. There is no other such primary evidence for any other site. I would argue that this painting is thus unique and key in justifiably naming the Battle of Hastings - 'THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS'. And more-over, I suggest that this is the reason the name has stuck for a thousand years. Thus in many ways Williams achievement - the conquest - has been underestimated through modern history. He tailored his army to suit the conditions, key to that being a sheltered beach where the sea-state would be known. And designing seaworthy boats of shallow draft which could make use of it.One would add that the contemporary description of the landing in the chronicle as 'Near Hastings' is correct and there is no similar primary evidence to support other accounts, such as the first hand and accurate evidence shown here. Moreover the Guide to Hastings of 1797 supports this notion as it states that ships landed 3 tonnes regularly on this beach to supply Lime kilns situated behind the buildings shown in this picture, (the landing site marked as 'The Haulaway' on a map from 1798 (Hastings Observer) can indeed be seen as a mound in front of the houses on the castle headland, in detail, in both the present painting and that of Grimm, in 1784,, also showing identifiably the same buildings FROM A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, in a similar scene as the present painting (AS SHOWN) but his painting rather shown at low tide and from a perspective which crucially does not show the beach - especially as seen here with boats moored on it at high tide - as exactly would have been the case at the moment of the landing in 1066. (albeit that Grimm's painting shows a massive beach area suitable for landing 700 boats as the tide changed)THE PAINTING THUS FILLS IN EXTENSIVE ACCURATE DETAIL NOT SHOWN IN THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY- INCLUDING MEASURE - NOT LEAST BECAUSE THE PERSPECTIVAL ART REQUIRED DID NOT ITSELF EXIST IN 1066 AND INDEED DID NOT EXIST UNTIL THE RENAISSANCE. ONE CAN THUS SEE THE POWER OF FARINGTON'S (THIS) PAINTING IN REVEALING TRUTH AND FIRST HAND EVIDENCE OF THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS. SUCH FIRST HAND EVIDENCE AND THE LIGHT FARINGTON'S PAINTING THROWS ON THE BATTLE WAS NOT EVEN AVAILABLE IN 1066. HENCE HIS IMPORT AS AN ARTIST AT VALENCIENNES - 3 YEARS PRIOR TO THE PRESENT PAINTING AND TO THE MILITARY AT THE TIME OF THE PRESENT PAINTING IN RESPECT OF SITING GUNS ON THE HEADLAND HE IS HERE PAINTING. (AND IN HIS SKETCHBOOK WHICH INFORMS THIS PAINTING - NOW IN THE VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM)IN SUMMARY - THIS IS THE INVASION BEACH OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR - PAINTED BY A MILITARY ARTIST WHO COULD SEE IT IN A WAY THAT WILLIAM COULD NOT HAVE SEEN IT HIMSELF IN 1066. FARINGTON'S EYES THOSE OF A MILITARY ARTIST OF 1797 PAINTING TO INFORM THE SITING OF GUNS COVERING THE BEACH FROM INVASION BY NAPOLEON IN 1797. THUS USING A PERSPECTIVE NOT EVEN 'SEEN' IN 1066 NOR EXPRESSED THROUGH VISUAL MEANS. (Julian Jaynes would argue that humans would have seen things in 1066 exactly as they expressed them in their art - in particular - things we take for granted today, such as perspective,- which we today regard as universal - may well not have existed in 1066)As a consequence of the use of perspective by Farington in the present painting - it is SO MUCH MORE INFORMATIVE ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE LANDING OF 1066 THAN ANY CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENT OR THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY ITSELF - BOTH SOURCES LACKING THE PERSPECTIVAL VIEW SHOWN HERE.In 1797 - I propose - from the evidence presented below - the time of the present painting - I'd suggest this to be the exact site that William The Conqueror first set foot in England. The site would at that time have been self evident and therefore not worth officially recording (other than for the military perspective as suggested for the present painting, especially as a proposed site for defensive guns) .. A successful landing of William's armored cohorts and their horses in 1066 would have required a shallow sloping beach and calm water. Such an armada could not risk leaving France, ESPECIALLY WILLIAM'S ARMADA BUILT OVER A PERIOD OF 9 MONTHS AND MORE THAN A YEAR IN THE PLANNING with no knowledge of the sea-state at Hastings - and risk a landing in swell on a steep shore - Having left France - there would be no turning back -- So the exact invasion site - like the D -Day landings (even with the technology and maneuverability of ships in 1944 (and thence without the need to land horses)- when many were lost to the sea - Or the failed landings of the Spanish armada or other attempted failed invasions of the French in 1796 and 7 ) was critical. This painting shows for the first time not only that a shallow calm sheltered beach existed at Hastings suitable for William's armada to land whilst simultaneously the English channel is shown rough as evidenced by boats heeling toward the horizon, but also indicates with a high degree of probability the exact site of the invasion as it was depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry - and possibly painted from the same vantage point of the artists who recorded the events of 1066. Indeed - the calm water shown here is shown as a key feature of the Bayeux Tapestry It was particularly necessary to land the horses - which effectively won the battle of Hastings for the Normans. There would have been carnage in the landing even before any battle had the boats not been flat when they first landed. There in all probability would not have been a battle had the horses been stood on sloping wet wood - before they were winched over the gunnels.Significantly -the current painting also shows that the site is now lost to history due to both the explosive removal of the headland from which the current painting of 1797 was painted in 1834 and the rapid building of modern Hastings over the landing site soon after 1797 - so that the shallow calm bay as shown here in 1797- suitable for the landing of William's armada and the unloading of his horses as depicted in shallow calm water and flat inclined beach - as depicted repeatedly in the Bayeux Tapestry - no longer existed and was wiped from history without record (inadvertently)- other than it is shown here by Farington - (an accurate artist as used for his accuracy by the military) - in this painting - the site subsequently again lost to history - and not revealed since, for another 224 years, by the revelation in the present painting..(Perhaps Britain has been doing its best to forget the invasion)In 1797 England was again under threat of invasion from France - indeed the French actually invaded Fishguard in the last such invasion of mainland British soil in that very year and sent an invasion force to Ireland in the winter of 1796 in order to join the sympathetic Irish and provide a springboard to invade Britain......More-over it was only the weather and lack of a suitable landing site that destroyed both armadas sent by the French to invade England in 1796 and 1797 - demonstrating just how important the beach as it is depicted here in 1797 would have been to the success of the Conquerors invasion 700 years prior especially his ability to off-load horses - in 1066 the equivalent of canon-albeit an unlikely invasion site in 1797 - the French adopting bombardment tactics by that time, and there being no population on beach to bombard.... and Turner was patriotic and perhaps somewhat obsessed with the sea defenses of England (not surprising given the potential threat of imminent invasion and the failed attempts of the French in this year ), painting most of them and desperate with egotistical and professional ambition, following the success of his first major oil painting of a seascape as exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1796 (with the aid of Joseph Farington's control of its exposure at exhibition) to gain the King's official commission to paint the country's, then crucial and pivotal naval campaign against the continent, which was the only matter of concern in determining the future existence of the country at that particular instant. (a commission he didn't get until belatedly being asked to record some of the scenes retrospectively - so in this context he would have had to be present at any likely engagement to gain first hand imagery of the conflict - hence a good reason for his presence at Hastings in 1797) Indeed, in this respect there were skirmishes with the French around Hastings and the crew of a French raider was captured and landed at Hastings in 1797 and were made prisoners. Added to this, a battery of 3 guns captured by Nelson at the battle of Cape St.Vincent, also in 1797 - were being built on the headland of Hastings at 'White Rock' in the same year (as shown in Farington's 1797 sketchbook.) and about a 100 yards away from the site of the present painting)...... Thus for many reasons both personal and professional, Wild Horses could not have stopped Turner visiting Hastings in 1797, driven that he was......nor Joseph Farington, a veteran military artist of the 7 year war and a close ally of Turner at the Royal academy...1797 was an amazing and turbulent year in the defense of our realm.. However returning to the subject matter of the present painting - against a backdrop of such turmoil (not to mention the 'Bread Riots' of 1797 in Hastings), that original 1066 landscape - with its unique footprints, has been lost to history before the location was officially recorded in any way - so the matter is until now open to debate as to exactly where the Conqueror first set foot. However I'd suggest that - in this very painting - here Farington, Turner and his father are re-enacting William the Conqueror's first steps on English soil, an immensely symbolic occasion - meteorically projected - by the events at Fishguard that year, and the attempted invasion of Ireland the previous year, into the forefront of the country's collective psyche in 1797...There was a genuine fear of French invasion at the time . And I include Farington in this re-enactment as William The Conqueror undoubtedly had his own military artist record the event in the Bayeaux tapestry 800 years prior, perhaps recording the scene from this very spot !!!!! Indeed the picture as seen here might have been a common pilgrimage for the educated patriotic before 1800 and the main reason why Hastings became a tourist resort in the first place . It was highlighted on the frontispiece of the new 'Guide to Hastings' being described as the towns main attraction in 1797.....interestingly the 1804 publication of the guide showing the area to have been built up significantly since 1797 and two 1795 maps of the location which both show dwellings as they are located in the present painting. (The present painting having the advantage of showing the exact location of the waterline and the elevation contours. - which can be cross referenced with maps)The 'Priory Bridge' shown in the present painting also possibly seen in the Bayeaux tapestry - looking to have arches as also shown there. The priory itself dating from around that time - although the bridge must have existed before.. It is extremely fortuitous that Farington includes the Priory Bridge in the present painting as today it locates the geography precisely in relation to that of 1066 and the river beneath - probably remnant of glacial outflow from the last Ice Age and which would map the line of deepest approach to Hastings from the sea and which was recorded in the reconstructed map of 1250 together with the sheltered bay seen in the present painting, here shown with boats on the shore where the river flowing beneath the bridge entered the bay from the land (suggesting the presence of a quasi-permanent beach) - which Farington also shows here. It is highly likely that Farington knew the relevance of the bridge and in the painting moved the sail out of the way to include it - also probably due to his known predilection for geographic and perhaps historical accuracy albeit that it is a tiny detail in the landscape and also tiny in comparison to detail of the sitters. It would be no problem for him to have left it behind the sail.To us Brits 'The Conqueror's' first steps - are a little like the exact location of Columbus's or Cabot's first step in mainland USA... But their location had - until the discovery and interpretation of this very painting - been lost to history. More than appropriate, indeed perhaps relevant, that Turner and his father's name were both William. Interestingly it has been proven that there is at least one direct descendant of William the Conqueror running around the country today in general circulation - and still acting like he owns the place !!!!! the event does indeed have a lot to answer for..... He still thinks he's the guv'nor....his paticular claim to fame , though evidently being that he can eat 4 meat and potato pies in about 30 seconds.......that's the measure of the man.......As much as a painting of the foremost British artist of all time (and his father) - this painting - it transpires - is thus a rich accurate historical record of Hastings as it appeared in 1797, also especially as it contrasts with the modern day town which has much changed the landscape - remembering that it is here painted by the foremost accurate landscape painter of the day. (according to the British Military) .(if one wishes to get ones bearings in this landscape of Hastings as it is shown here in 1797- 'Priory Bridge' is drawn by Farington just behind the sail of the boat as shown and on the road line from the castle headland whilst much of the town is under the water - and the boat) And CRUCIALLY IN RESPECT OF THE VALUE OF THE PRESENT PAINTING - I'd suggest for those looking for the remains of the bridge today - this painting gives as good an indication of where it was in 1797 and in 1066 as one will find - and moreso I'd suggest it demonstrates exactly where William The Conquerer is likely to have first landed in 1066, showing the line of deepest approach to Hastings from the sea as also seen on the first map from 1250 (providing that unlike Turner he deployed his rudder appropriately - otherwise he'd end up grounded like Turner as he's shown here - and in the same spot ) And of equal relevance the calm water shown here in the bay (as also shown in the earliest map of 1250) just as it would have been in 1066 allowing William's armada to land - is shown here significantly contrasted with the rougher water in the English Channel as demonstrated by boats heeling in the wind in the top right of the painting. It might have been the only such place on the south coast suitable. This is the only historical record of the site and also demonstrating admirably its key features in respect of William's 1066 landing.Highly likely that this is exactly why Farington chose this exact location for his painting of Turner ! And why Turner and his father agreed to sit here for the painting. And of course even without Turner's professional and patriotic reasons for being their - the events of 1066 are one of the primary drives for people to have first visited Hastings as tourists....and still is. (It may have been why Hieronymous Grimm was visiting and painting Hastings in 1784 - his 'job specification' - also - like Farington - known as an accurate painter, to paint and record things of historical import (like a newspaper photographer), unfortunately his similarly accurate painting of the scene - just missing the beach where William would have landed and showing the site at low tide, thus not revealing the waterline or the calm that would have come with the high tide.One of the beauties of this painting is that it doesn't require an art expert to validate it. I purchased this in 2018 in the hope that information would come to light which allowed one to identify the bright snappily, period dressed individuals who appeared to be the focus of the painting. After about a year of reading Joseph Farington's diaries and about him, one name kept repeating. JMW Turner. Although only recently did I discover more information that could tie Turner to this painting through determining its exact date.. Indeed the identification of the two 'gentlemen in the boat at Hastings' (auctioneer's title) as Turner and his father, rests in part on my recent discovery and realization (after 3 years of having acquired the painting from Hansons in London) of what is the rudder arm, shown resting on the port side stern of the boat in the painting and the recent subsequent discovery of exactly the same detail in a painting by Joseph Farington - now at the Yale Center For British art. (shown) - so to draw parallels between those 2 paintings and the implication for the present painting of the broken rudder arm.. This combined with the discovery of the very similar landscape with the same buildings by Grimm in 1784 but with the detail re-positioned from a very slightly different perspective shows the present painting to be very real and accurate - a trait of Farington for which he was employed by the British army in 1793 at the siege of Valenciennes and for which his work is kept in the Victoria and Albert Museum as a detailed and precise historical record - whereas in the Tate, Yale etc his work is kept also for its artistic merit. These discoveries all very fortuitous as the 223 year old landscape no longer exists and such accuracy making me believe the landscape nevertheless did exist at the time of the painting and so to further research the history of the scene and reveal the mystery behind the headland from which the painting was made, the rocks of which frame the painting the color of which I originally thought had just faded over time but which it turns out not only did exist in 1797 but are actually this color and which again are rendered accurately in great detail, and indeed the mystery of the seascape - which like the headland no longer exists (but for a completely different reason). And thus use this knowledge to tie Farington's sketchbook - written and painted in 1797 - directly to this painting and so to the age of the 'gentlemen in the boat' if they were indeed Turner and his father. (at the same time solving the mystery of the location of the sketch as shown in his sketch book in the Victoria & Albert Museum - and adding significantly to its context and relevance to the Hastings of 1797) (the sketch book kept in the Victoria and Albert Museum precisely because it is thought to be an accurate historical record - especially so with his detailed related written notes as shown)It is not difficult to identify as being by Farington because of its detailed drawing and similarities to his other similar paintings and on the face of it, as a landscape by Farington, it would not have a great value. However - if one identifies the individuals in the boat as Turner and his father, there is a paradigm shift in its context. Farington known as important to Turner and someone whose attention was reciprocated - as recorded by Turner's writing on a painting he executed at the request of Farington - in particular a view of the lake district where Farington resided for a number of years, based upon a request of Farington in a visit to Turner at his house in Maiden lane. . To cause this paradigm shift - the only question one has to answer is - Does this look like Turner and his father? In this way - I think the painting really belongs in public ownership - as the public can readily see the likeness of the sitters to Turner and his father. It needs no specialist knowledge about the history or technique of the painting to see its value in the context described above. However - if the subject is Turner and his father, not only does this dramatically increase its value - it elevates Farington's art to a whole new level. It means that Farington's import as a diarist in revealing detail of artists at the Royal Academy and in particular Turner, is translated into a visual depiction of its greatest artist and through the same eyes that describe him at length in writing and indeed relate to him in person - indeed by the man who one could argue - first brought Turner to the world by hanging his paintings in the most prestigious locations - and his relationship to Turner thus also evidenced directly by the occasion of the execution of the present painting. Viewed in this wider light - a personal comment by Farington on Turner - and such attention reciprocated, - the painting entirely makes sense (a picture paints a thousand words) - indeed the painting perhaps reciprocal to Turner's gift. It is plain and straightforward. Here is the great man Turner doing what he liked doing best - with his father, who he loved especially at this particular time and on this particular occasion, given the troubles with his mother, - in a place he loved doing it. This is Turner 'at play', free from his worries (other than the boat lacks its rudder arm and is therefore possibly about to capsize in the shallows - accounting for his expression) or his professional commitment to painting. Moreover painted at the Hastings he loved as expounded in his many paintings of the place and by a renowned accurate landscape painter of the day who was important to Turner and who Turner also painted for. In a way - it would be more surprising if Farington had not painted Turner. In the context described above in 1797 - the painting suggests itself. I think Farington had the motive and probably the opportunity to do the deed. Until very recently the evidence had remained lost in diverse locations around the world. Below I bring the evidence together to place Farington at the scene and at the time. Especially with thanks to The Yale center for British Art. I'm sure somebody could extract some DNA from smudges on the painting. For my small part, I'd make the simple observation that there is only one other portrait of Turner's father and it looks very much like the helm in this painting;(also compare the detail of this painting to that of Grimm 1784 to show how accurate Farington is in capturing detail - It is easy to see that this landscape is exactly similar to Grimm's 1784 depiction of the place - even though, like Turner's father's portrait by Linnel the present image is drawm from a different perspective) just as I propose one can see Linnell's portrait of Turner's father is the same person as shown at the helm here) with the caveat that the present painting adds to this likeness through the use of color, especially a ruddy complexion as described in Turner's biography - this adding to the specific points of similarity - especially his fat lower lip, none existent top lip, high cheek bones, joined by shading to a strong jaw line (a jaw described as 'Jutting' by his good friend, artist Henry Trimmer and shown clearly and in complimentary and contiguous manner to other facial features as seen in both images here), big hooked nose, forward combed hair (contrasting with all the other sailors and fishermen in the 2 other contemporary pictures painted by Farington) and contrasting with Turner as here shown (Turner's father wearing a wig as also shown in his only portrait), his similar jowls - here additionally accentuated and characteristic of the 15 years between his only portrait done by John Linnell RA and the present picture - a distinctive mole or defect on his left lower lip - and last but not least - his neatly tied cravat - I posit here painted specifically to contrast with the cravat of second individual in the boat (Turner) who is described in his biography as always having a 'slovenly tied cravat' (and this also evidenced in his only known photograph). In addition we have the memory of William from a long time friend, Henry Scott Trimmer - an artist and friend, who described him retrospectively simply from recollection as a 'strong man, with hooked nose like a parrot, jutting jaw and small blue eyes'. - this carcarure all seen in the present painting, his eyes indeed appearing small and his jaw distinctively jutting. He, in the present painting, looking swarthy in stature with strong muscular hands. In fact I would argue that the image of the present painting is a better caricature of Trimmer's recollection of William than is his portrait by Linnell. (the only portrait known of William) Particularly emphasized are his hooked nose like a parot, jutting jaw and small eyes. In addition the 'strong' aspect of William is shown through the robust stature of the helm, combined with his muscular hands. This better caricature might be due to the use of color (which also adds a bright ruddy complexion as also described in Turner's biograhy) , Farington's much greater personal contact and familiarity with William than Linnell's, the front-on profile Farington chooses here, or the need by Farington to caricature the helm with respect to Turner, because of the smaller size of the image within his landscape requiring accentuated or more overt cues, so as to identify the sitters to a wider audience ; for example and especially as exemplified by the more neatly tied cravat of the helm and the size of Turner. Both facts known in relation to Turner and his father, and perhaps the forward combed hair of the helm which is evidently contrast with the style of the day as shown by Farington on all the other sailors he depicts.In support of this strong likeness of the helm to the portrait of Turner's father...I suggest he is here contrasted with Turner himself - in part using caricature - especially and in particular so that he can be identified in the boat by Farington at a distance - which would ordinarily be very difficult whilst simultaneously including him within the iconic backdrop of Hastings castle, painted in Farington's trademark and commercially successful style of landscape and clearly his forte ), so the painting managing to combine Farington's strengths and successful commercial template for which he had repute (all of Farington's 100 or so listings on ebay are landscapes), with a portrait of Turner in the activity and environment which he clearly enjoyed. It might be noted in passing that by 1795 - improvements in the road system by the addition of a toll road between London and Hastings had recently reduced the travel time from 3 to 1 day - making Hastings much more accessible than it had been and this would account for the visit of Turner and Farington in 1797 which was also the year in which a new expanded travel guide to the area was published)) (Turner wasn't born holding a paintbrush and it is entirely likely that one might see him enjoying himself without one in his hand - he did hide in boats as a child - just to ride them down the Thames)Thus the two figures in the boat should be considered both individually and together as one entity and in this particular activity and at this particular location in considering each of their identities, and I'd argue the contrast and similarities between them, the location and activity gives strong support for their identification as Turner and his father. Especially - Turner is here depicted as diminutive and active (rather than rotund as in later pictures, (in his younger days walking countless miles and sailing)), in a pose seen in another portrait of him as shown painting the Fighting Temaraire by Daniel Maclise. Here he has a large nose with a slight upturn at the end as seen in his self portrait at age 15 or 16, a very red or (ruddy) complexion as also seen in the same self portrait - like also his father and as described in Turner's biography. (possibly this overtly noticeable redness related to the toxic metal pigments he used and his father mixed for him). Here, in the present painting, he has accentuated raised eyebrows appropriately and of relevance -as seen in an exactly similar manner to that shown in the portrait of him by Charles Turner at age 20 (who also produced a later portrait as shown below of Turner without raised eyebrows) . Turner was described as having a thin top lip , protuberant jaw and large nose, all of which seen here. (his mother's portrait making her look like a stereo typical 'witch' and it was said Turner inherited some of those traits). One can indeed compare the current portrait of him to his only 2 known photo-real depictions of him. And one would note the shape of his nose and raised eyebrows look similar, not to mention his attire - despite those pictures being at least 45 years after the present painting. All the above notwithstanding - in strong support for this likeness to Turner and his fathers images, I show below that the painting was highly probably done in 1797, dating the sitters to ages 22 and 52, which would fit perfectly with the circumstance of the painting and their appearance. I posit that it would take a major conflation of circumstance and mis-interpretation for this painting to be any other than a portrait of Turner and his father by Joseph Farington, and that this is self evident to everyone, irrespective of their knowledge of art. I'd ask that the reader simply come to their own conclusion after contemplating images of Turner and his father including their caricatures, likenesses and contrasts.- ruddy complexions, big noses thin top lips, tidy verses untidy cravats, size, big verses small, indeed add into that their environment, the fact that they where characterized as looking like ruddy faced sailors in Turner's biography and Turner loving sailing as much as painting and indeed his father. Whilst additionally - they were metaphorically in 'the same boat' whilst 'mama' was suffering extreme mental illness at the time of the painting and Joseph Farington would have been the only artist to know them well enough to paint this picture !!.....the combination of these facts - I think all making it highly likely that this is Turner and his father.Thus I present the evidence below that the painting was done in 1797 and show its precise location.I think Joseph Farington is under-rated as an artist - largely because his main body of work in watercolor has faded over 250 years. He was a great observer and recorder of detail, both in his visual art and similarly in his extensive diaries, much of which are available online.Eugene Delacroix said of Richard Parkes Bonington that he had the finest touch of any artist, and I think Faington's drawing stands comparison with Bonington's painting in this respect. It is difficult to show this here with the camera I have.This must be one of the most intriguing paintings unearthed in modern times. In order to date it - I had to show, firstly that the landscape, as viewed, existed in 1797 - and secondly - I had to place Farington exactly at the scene of the painting in 1797. (Hastings was spread along the coast) Fortuitously Farington kept detailed diaries and sketchbooks. However the sketchbook of his 1797 trip threw a few curved balls which stumped me for more than a year. Although it is evident from his diaries that he was in Hastings in both 1785 and 1797, it was not clear exactly where he was. It would be necessary to deduce this from his very detailed sketches.. (If this painting was from 1785 - the sitters would be too young to be Turner and his father) The first problem was that the detailed landscape of Hastings he showed in his sketchbook of 1797 no longer exists. Secondly - the landscape seen in the present painting no longer exists. Initially I did not realize this and the value of the painting rested upon the similarity of the sitters to their likenesses seen and depicted at the time by other artists and indeed their caricatures in the press together with the only known photograph of Turner and a daguerrotype albeit that the latter were only late in his life. To give substance to these likenesses one needed a date for the painting and so ages for both of the sitters. Initially therefore I could not relate the present painting with Farington's sketches..However from lithographs, it appears that the headland shown in Farington's 1797 sketchbook was in fact 'White Rock' - and it was blown up and removed in 1834 to give a tide free route from Hastings going west to the new town of St Leonards. Moreover, a detailed painting by Grimm 1784 showed a very similar view to that shown in the present painting, overlooked by myself at the time because superficially - the view showed the area in-front of the castle to be dry land and not sea as seen in the present painting and so the picture looking quite different to the present painting, even though it was in fact a similar perspective (interestingly it does not show boats moored on a beach as shown in the present painting, [noting that Grimm's remit was to paint unusual events - perhaps the land being dry in his painting 'an unusual event'])However going back to a map of 1250, the area shown by Grimm to be dry land is there depicted as sea, exactly as it is seen in the present painting and there, the area is called Priory Marshes and Grimm's painting is described as being 'West of the Priory'.Significantly I have just noticed that a bridge is depicted in the present painting - just behind the sail on the line of the road heading up from the castle headland. This bridge must be 'Priory Bridge' as it appeared in 1797 and perhaps of great interest to historians of Hastings. The river beneath it was described as 100 feet wide and was culverted when modern Hastings was built to outlet on the beach as it exists today. This makes sense as it probably carved out what is depicted here as a bay with a beach with boats. (in 1797), and was probably the source of the inlet to the Haven which gave rise to Hastings as a port before 1066. Possibly the remnants of a glacial stream or outlet at the end of the last ice age. Its line into the bay can just be seen in the present painting to the right of the boats sail. Boats can be seen parked on the beach as Farington paints it, to the left of the sail.Likewise on a map of 1795 the area is shown with two lagoons.Thus it becomes possible to relate Farington's 1797 sketch as shown - directly to the present painting. (One can go furher than this if one wished - and actually determine the exact location of the boat in the present painting using Google 3D and triangulation from comparison between the perspectives of Grimm and the present painting) - Of particular note in the present painting is that the area of water is flat calm by comparison with the boats depicted on the horizon - which are heeling in the wind. This would suggest the water in the foreground to derive perhaps from flood (of the Priory Marsh) and not to be open sea. Hence perhaps not an everyday occurrence as is also suggested from Grimm's painting of the area looking to be far from the beach. Perhaps a spring-tide.(lining up the headlands of Castle Hill and East Hill and the building on the headland which is also positioned in Grimm's 1784 picture as shown - on Google 3D, gives an approximate location of the bottom of Robertson Street (as shown with a yellow line)) - Perhaps the building next door to the YMCA. The present painting appears to be framed either side by what were the rocks into which tracks were carved to make a route up to the White Rock headland (blown up and removed in 1834), perhaps a wheel rut of this original track visible in the center foreground. If this is so, and it looks to be so, the water could be shallow enough for the boat to be resting on the bottom so that the portrait could be painted 'en plein air'. Hence from this it appears that Farington painted the scene in his 1797 sketchbook (as shown) from the same vantage point as the present painting but looking in the opposite direction (looking west) toward a look out point (building) on the 'White Rock' headland (the look-out point built at the same time as the 'garrison building' Farington shows at the base of the castle headland). The ruts of the track in the page from the sketch book (as shown) carved in the rock and perhaps having sea water in them from a receding tide - are probably the same rut shown at the center bottom of the present painting. Thus it appears from the above that Farington was at this precise location, and ther painting in 1797, in which case Turner would be 22 and his father William 52. It could well be that the wheel rut shown here still exists in somebody's garden !!!!!! It looks from Google that such rocks do still exists in gardens in the vicinity. Sleuths out there might like to investigate.Perhaps belonging in the Tate or Hastings Art gallery for its totemic import to British art, not to mention Hastings.. although one might suspect The Yale Center For British Art to have an interest - having an extensive collection of Farington's work - which as its zenith in terms of subject matter - this would front, crystallize and contextualize. (Farington's formative years also spent in Maryland (now USA)). Farington's reputation in respect of accuracy in respect of landscape painting, prima facie, in the present painting shows Hastings before it rose from the sea, and its rise here observed first hand and associated with JMW Turner, who indeed is pictured floating above it as it would appear today, his eminence likewise, from this point on - both in time and location, conjoined with the rise of Hastings - which he loved and which he subsequently visited and painted numerous times and from the sea as depicted here, (the accomplished and experienced sailor that he was)..One might even justifiably ask - is the event depicted here the birth of Hastings?. Recognized by Turner - the great man, who expounded its virtues through his famous art, especially attracting visitors from London.. Its population certainly exploded from this very time. In a map from 1795 - shown last picture above- the area shown in this painting, covered by sea to the landward, is marked on the map as an area with lagoons - fed by a river which was previously the 'Haven' of Hastings - accessed from the sea in front of the castle and this Haven together with access to the sea along the line of the river is shown with boats inland in a map from 1746 so it looks as the whole area was prone to the natural vicissitudes of hydrology including flooding. And it appears from the present painting, that what is today Hastings, is here depicted beneath the sea - and Turner. - If the sea did not come inland significantly, the line of the road shown in Grimm's painting would continue straight across the bay to the foot of the castle hill without detouring to first going inland..(It might be that the track's ruts shown in Farington's sketch-book have water in them - perhaps from a receding tide. ) So the picture, with it' s calm water, contrasting with that causing the boats to heel in the distance, is thus likely to be somewhat inland from today's seafront and this idea is supported by the fact that the headland of 'East Hill' - today always visible from the sea front and as shown in Grimm's painting, - is not shown here and it appears also that the building in front of the East Hill is in fact just visible in the present painting - its base being over the horizon of the beach - and appearing nearest to the foot of castle hill of the 2 buildings pictured there. Also - if one compares closely the detail of the houses at the foot of the castle - one can see the perspective of the present painting is different to that of Grimm's painting - supporting the idea that this picture is further inland than the point from which Grimm's perspective was produced, explaining why East Hill is not visible. One can go further and drop a line from the same point on the castle in both paintings through the same unique house in both paintings (the house with a prominent apex at the foot of the castle hill) and determine that the location of the artist in the present painting is approximately to the left of where the mule is in Grimm's painting. (as shown) - accounting for the missing headland which would be behind the castle hill in the present painting. All the above suggests the view as seen in this painting then looks to be real. The high tide shown would derive from water displaced by the collapse of the castle cliff to block the deep inlet of the harbor which existed prior. Likely not a regular occurrence to any great depth as the area is shown as being green in Grimm's picture. Combined with this evidence - cross referencing landscapes of the area produced 10 years apart, it would also be somewhat hard to believe an oversight of a missing headland in the present painting by someone who's hard won reputation relied on his accuracy. Quoting from wikipedia Farington's real forte lay in the careful, accurate topographical drawings which he prepared for the folios of engravings of British views ( such accuracy the reason he was employed by the British military to produce plans for the siege of Valenciennes)) Also, in addition to all of this, he made very accurate sketches and extensive detailed notes concerning the local topography in his 1797 Hastings sketch book (as shown below) Having established that the painting with respect to the landscape is likely real and accurate I have just found a painting by Farington (Yale Center for British Art) as shown in the second picture above (beneath the boat as it is seen in the present painting) in which he uses an image of exactly the same boat as that depicted in the present painting -( identified by its same broken rudder arm lying on the port side stern and thus evidently accurately copied between the two paintings )- in another of his land / seascapes (at Yale) (evident from this is that he was not a sailor and thus he did not realize the significance of the rudder arm...so the boat is thus apparently initially painted and drawn statically parked on hard-standing with the rudder arm - either broken - or not attached to the rudder stock and he has transposed this to his paintings, in a very accurate manner- to cases where it is thus evident that the same boat is afloat - i.e he depiccts it without its rudder arm deployed in both the present and the Yale painting {he does say in his 1797 Hastings sketchbook that he intends specifically to draw the detail of boats on his trip to Hastings } . However in the Yale painting, although it is clear that he uses the image of the same boat - he also adds a crew similar to that seen in his similar picture of fishermen in a boat at Hastings (Christies 2013) as shown (also likely painted on his 1797 trip) but the crew in contradistinction without the detailed facial features seen in the present painting. It is thus clear that he is using the boat in the present painting merely as a prop for the portrait of the sitters, thus it not having to be painted from life with the sitters in it as pictured although it is not inconceivable that the situation might have arisen. Nevertheless of great relevance to the present painting - all the sailors (and Turner himself) are shown with long bushy hair. Whereas Turner's father is characterized here exactly as seen in his only known portrait by Linnell RA as shown, with hair (which is a wig) distinctively combed forward. (read on)I have a similar 1850 portrait painting (of a different subject) for sale in which the clothes and setting are exactly the same but the faces of the sitter are different. - (here the clothes are also different) and also another pair of 19th century paintings in which the artist uses the same boat in different settings. So this was common practice for artists of the day......In 1797 Turner was a 22 year old super-star - created in part by Joseph Farington. , (whilst Turner's fame exploded - his mother's health declined) who the year before had given Turner's first oil painting 'masterpiece status' by its display in the prime location at the Royal Academy summer exhibition....and to great acclaim...........Note thus in respect of the present painting- that in 1797 - it would have been fool-hardy, practically suicidal, to take to the sea in a sailing boat - if one didn't know what one was doing.Why then is the character on the left wearing coat-tails ? - which would be wholly inappropriate to wear in such a boat?............I argue that it is because this is Farington's caricature of Turner in a contrived picture.........and his father contrasted and so a part of the caricature here wearing a formally tied cravat, as though at his workplace as a barber - rather than at the business of sailing (whereas Turner was known as described in his biography particularly and contrarily for his 'scruffily' tied cravats).. To have Turner and his father in such as setting would have been a coup for any artist and would be considered so by any artist since.. .Thus this is not necessarily a typical landscape by Farington whose business was as described above the accurate painting of landscapes for publication in lithographs and books - this commitment to accuracy suggested and supported on the occasion of this painting by his very detailed sketches and notes on Hastings and its environment in his 1797 sketch book, (the buildings seen on the very tip of the castle headland being built to house the garrison in the early 1790s in the face of the French threat) - certainly he was using the boat as a prop for the sitters and the boat is pictured too close to the shore to be afloat. ............ Given the problems with his mother's mental illness, Turner loved sailing and his father as much as he loved painting. I contest these relationships are manifest in this portrait of Turner and his father....Unique in many ways.....and by an artist who himself had unique insight and involvement in Turner's aspirations and the making of his and indeed of our world today....One only need look at a £20 note to be reminded of this......An image of Turner is like .....money in the bank.Joseph Farington visited Hastings in 1797 and made sketches from which he was to develop paintings. His primary business was landscape painting for the purpose of making lithographs. A page from his very detailed sketch book is shown below. Mostly he produced watercolor of images which were drawn in ink - as is this painting.. (He did not paint much after 1800 after the death of his wife and although he kept a daily diary which is published - much was edited) (suggesting the present painting to be more than 200 years old). Farington played an important role in Turner's success - being responsible for hanging paintings in the most prestigious location at the Royal Academy summer exhibitions, in particular so that they would be located to be seen and sold to royalty.. And Turner's 1796 (first) oil painting was displayed prominently by Farington to huge critical acclaim at that year's exhibition. A similar painting to the presently described painting was sold at Christies London in 2013 (£812 hammer) (although that was only a sketch of the detail of a boat and not a landscape). I show it next to the detail from the present painting above. Both entitled 'Joseph Farington' 'Boat at Hastings' on the mount. They have a similar degree of fading of the washes and age although the penned line detail is still prominent. I purchased this painting at auction as 'Boat at Hastings by Joseph Farington'. (and this can still be found on the internet) It is clearly the same hand as seen in the Christies painting and also as evident by the rudder detail on the stern the same hand that painted the Yale picture as shown. No doubt the age related fading detracts from the subtle shades, especially the intensity of the sky and so from the composition and likewise there is some staining although fortunately it does not affect the sitters or the characteristic iconic landscape. Although the rocks in the foreground- at first appearing faded might well have had this natural color as they appear to be the 'white rock' at the foot of St.Michael's cliff, giving there appearance to the name of the area 'White Rock' - thus being an important component of the composition - and their texture and color etc. being rendered very carefully by Farington. As a matter of record and as can also be seen on-line, the auction was a stone's throw away from Sandycombe Lodge - Turner's house in London and in a dis-used theater - previously a sanitorium in the time of Turner. (I wonder if a doctor there treated Turner's mother before she was admitted to a similar establishment in 1799 - not inconceivably paid in kind with this painting) This notwithstanding it is instructive to compare the detail of the Christies painting with the present. (and also to compare these paintings with that at Yale) - I think the gentlemen in the boat are dressed unlike the fisherman or oarsmen in the Christies' boat. The chap at the helm has his cravat tied more neatly in a bow and their brightly colored waistcoats and attire (brighter 200 years ago when painted) are unsuitable for work - or even sailing. The central figure - has 'coat tails' hanging as seen in the portrait of Turner painting by Daniel Maclise' (shown) and which would not have been worn in a sailboat as they would be heavy when wet, certainly they would be soaked walking in the shallows. Noting also that Turner's coat tails were a key feature of his caricatures in the press and sketches by other artists as they nearly reached the floor due to his short legs - making him easily identifiable - especially from behind where he was often depicted painting - and consequently standing out from the crowd. The 2 figures are central to the composition and facing the artist. I thus posit that they are the real subject of the painting and are posed for it, indeed the figures are possibly added on a later occasion. The boat is also too close to shore to be floating - and the rudder arm - a substantial piece of wood - giving leverage to the rudder of a heavy boat or against the sail in wind, as seen in the Christies' painting - in which one can see that the helmsman has to lean against it so as to steer - has here been removed so that it does not block the sitter at the helm from view. (I believe it is deliberately shown lying loose on the port-side stern as indicated in the above picture - although in the light of finding the painting at Yale one would rather believe that Farington did not actually realize the purpose of the rudder arm or - realizing it - nevertheless leaving it out of both the Yale and the present painting so as not to obstruct the helmsmen) (He could not steer the boat as it is shown - with one hand on the stub of a rudder arm) It is also seems likely that he has been depicted - not holding the rudder arm at all - which is certainly missing from the rudder - but in fact rather he has been shown holding a blade - possibly a deliberate nod to Turner's father's profession of being a barber. (It might be that the rudder arm is shown conveniently laying loose on the port side stern -primarily for logical continuity - explaining the presence of the boat so close to the shore through loss of control - close enough to the artist so that the subjects can be painted in detail from the artist's vantage point - and as a result also - the central figure is displaying a concerned expression with raised eyebrows (as seen in Charles Turner's portrait of JMWT shown) -...(This loss of the rudder arm - might have prompted a motivation for the focus of the painting as it would likely result in capsize - a dramatic event - this possibly a total fictional creation / contrivance of Farington in order to center the two sitters centrally within his landscape). (perhaps to satisfactorily explain to Turner himself - an accomplished sailor - how the portrait is to be conceived by the viewer as logically plausible) (I note since writing this that I have discovered the Yale painting and give alternate explanation for the boat having a 'broken rudder arm' based upon its observance in both the Yale painting and the present painting) - in terms of Farington's evident ignorance of the purpose or deployment of the rudder arm)Nevertheless the missing rudder arm is convenient and achieves a number of purposes - stopping the sitter being blocked by it, explaining how the boat got to where it is and giving the opportunity to place a blade in the sitters hand. Likewise the lines to the sail are not present so that they do not obstruct the central character from view. (They are present in the Yale painting - which does not focus upon the crew) The two figures are certainly painted with more detail and facing forward unlike the crew in the other painting at Christies and are clearly not fishermen. (likewise the Yale painting lacks facial detail to the same level although one might comment that the mothers of the crew of the Yale boat might recognize their sons from the detail shown in the Yale painting). The boat in the present painting is framed against the headland in a landscape for which Farington is much better known than a painter of portraits and I suggest its accuracy can in fact be measured by comparison with Grimm's painting (shown) which was conducted 13 years previously.. (although interestingly this is the only landscape by him I can find actually described as being at (rather than near) Hastings - and moreover - this despite the place being the subject of his 1797 visit over a period of days and its associated sketchbook )( conceivably other such paintings are in private hands - although he made money from lithographs of such views - so one must assume that that was his primary purpose there on this occasion)( In fact, I wonder if this painting is not constructed later from sketches he had made on the trip. What is the likelihood that the boat should lose its rudder or the rudder neglected at the stern of the boat - and the crew stay for an artist - appropriately positioned to paint them?? More likely this painting is a synthesis of his detailed sketches as also suggested by exactly the same boat appearing in the Yale picture..If the boat was in deep enough water to be afloat, I don't think one could see the detail in the subjects faces with smoke from the pipe etc. as is seen in the present work. More-over I suggest that if one compares the figures in the boat to the images we have of JMW Turner and his father - they are good likenesses. (The raised brows of the central character are also seen in the daguerrotype shown and an early cartoon-like drawing of the young Turner by Charles Turner entitled 'A Sweet Temper' executed in 1795 - 2 years prior to the present work (shown above and probably often overlooked because of its child-like quality which does not today or through history fit the prevailing concept of Turner - the 'giant of British art' as some kind of massive intellect)- nevertheless -it is the only portrait of Turner with emotive content and therefore raised eyebrows) (he 22 in the current image). Look also at the asymmetry in the face. Both Turner and the central subject here appear to have a wider rounder left cheek. Also of note is the diminutive size of the central figure (I posit Turner) next to the mast. Turner was described as having legs like a sparrow, probably about 5 feet to 5 feet 5inches tall in height although various estimates exist - some more flattering than others - and there is a sketch of him in the same pose - with his legs up depicting him painting the 'Fighting Temaraire' by Daniel Maclise - so this is a known 'pose' of his (shown) and perhaps the only depiction of him so. Notice his coat tails hanging down - he always being pictured with coat tails. (notice the difference between the top of his left spat and right spat in both images - this might indicate -together with the difference between left and right facial features, an asymmetry of body form between left and right halves of his body - perhaps a hallmark of artistic genius - as the right brain specializes in visual imagery). There is only one known portrait of Turner's father - a pencil sketch done by Linnell in 1812 (and that is therefore the only image we have of him) and I have shown it next to the figure at the helm. I think there is a good likeness. Moreover and significantly the likeness is added to over the likeness in that pencil sketch - especially by the red complexion, as Turner and his father were also described as having in his biography, and as described in the literature. (In the case of Turner such complexion only recalled in paint by the portrait shown - the portrait recalled from memory and not with Turner present - by Linnell in 1838) Turner was careful to avoid this red (ruddy) complexion in his self portrait as it made him look 'common' although his self-portrait at age 15 lacked this self-consciousness and does show him with a characteristic ruddy complexion as seen in the present painting. It is noted in Turner's Biography - that he and his father looked alike and both had a particularly notable red complexion (frowned upon in social circles - as it made them look like manual workers - but perhaps more than likely arising out of them both mixing and using toxic pigments (although both also spent much time outdoors - sailing etc.) - it is thought that Turner later became deranged due to such poisoning and his eyesight become affected by it) The 'helm' does even have red tainted hands in this painting. (His father mixing pigments for him) (And Farington (better known than Turner at the time for his detailed paintings and topographical lithographs {in fact used for this reason by the British army to sketch the defenses of Valenciennes - a town in Belgium under siege - the fine details were used to plan the attack}) -thus notably and reputedly at the time with an expert and highly practiced eye for color and detail) (Farington and Turner thus both sharing a great deal of patriotism and consequently both in good favor with the crown) In noting the smarter appearance of the 'helm' - Turner's father was a barber and would be expected to have a neatly tied cravat - whilst Turner was recorded in his biography as always to have a 'slovenly tied cravat' and I have shown the only known photograph of Turner to support this description. One might notice the hair of the helmsman to be brushed forward as in Linnell's sketch - and of relevance to this - Fortuitously perhaps in respect of the present painting -Linnell noted in writing on the sketch (as shown) that his hair was in fact a wig - so it would appear like this whatever the age of Turner's father - as it appears here. Noting also that the helm's hair is in contradistinction to all the other sailors depicted - being brushed forward above his ears. Note also the similar attire in the present painting to Turner in the only known dagguerotype - also shown (even despite the age difference in that as compared to the present painting) and also his buttoned spats are the same as those shown by Daniel Maclise in his picture of Turner painting the fighting Temaraire. It appears that in this painting Farington is using all of these details to caricature the sitters and moreover compounding this by contrasting them between the two - particularly using these identifying features as they both here are viewed from a distance (and engaged in past-time which Turner loved). Also in this respect - If one accepts the central figure as Turner - then one must note that he was also lampooned in the press and by some to believed to have lashed himself to the mast of a boat to experience a storm at sea. Likewise he is depicted here as the diminutive, albeit dynamic figure that he was, sitting next to the mast - in typical attire and artists pose, with his trademark coat tails hanging.... Turner said that he loved sailing more than painting. Turner himself was a very secretive person and there is only one contemporary portrait of him as a young man - and that the self-portrait as it appears on the £20 note. However the general comment about this self-portrait at the time was that it was flattering. That portrait does not show the red complexion which he was recorded as having. He was however recorded (in addition to a red complexion - like his father) as having a large nose, narrow lips and a protuberant chin. All of these features are seen here as is the similarity in appearance to his father. His raised eyebrows are also seen in an early angry depiction of him. Farington was perhaps Turner's closest acquaintance and was largely responsible for Turner's success through his influence at the Royal Academy....Turner giving him a painting of the lake district - a scene which Farington had prior chosen for Turner to paint (from Turner's sketch book) in a visit to Turner at his house in Maiden lane. Turner's painting for Farington is marked by Turner as such and was possibly also painted in the same year of this painting -1797. Farington is also recorded as being in the Lake District in 1797. All , including this trip to Hastings - and Turners painting from the sea at Hastings - perhaps prior to Turner's stay in the north at Otley in the same year. I think the likeness of Turner's father's only portrait by Linnell to the helm including the added advantage of color. The facts that the boat and sitters are clearly posed and the situation and the landscape topography contrived, - the substantial rudder arm removed and placed to be visible on the port-side stern so as not to obstruct the sitter's somewhat regal pose and the use of exactly the same boat in the Yale painting, - that the figure at the mast is diminutive and the attire of both sitters and their contrast and the likeness to the sitters descriptions in literature and here all suggests that this is a portrait of Turner and his father painted by Farington - perhaps the only person who would have been close enough to both sitters to produce this painting. One might add that Turner did paint Hastings from the sea (Christies archive) and the fishermen he depicted were in boats such as that depicted here. I think it entirely possible that that painting was also painted on this same visit to Hastings. I think there is enough circumstantial evidence combined with visual detail to support the contention that this is Turner and his father in a unique portrait. Note also that the centrality and detail of the sitters is highly unusual for any painting by Farington, known almost exclusively for his landscapes. As far as is known this is the only landscape Farington produced of Hastings (and all the more surprising therefore that it does not at first appear to be true to the topography of Grimm's 1784 painting given Farington's very detailed sketchbook - despite the fact that he went there over a period of days to paint it as recorded in his diary and sketchbook. (although it would be interesting if the sea level was as Farington depicted it - being much higher than that suggested by Grimm's painting (and a year on and with the discovery that the White Rock headland was blown up in 1934 I am now thinking that Farington's landscape and elevated sea level are accurate)) Surely only Turner and his Father could interject in such a way in his main topic of business.. and one might add that the red and blue of their attire would have been positively beaming when this was first painted - even now it is brighter than the reds and blues of the similarly dated Christies' painting (and that even shown in better light). So the figures would have been much more prominent than they already are when this was first painted. (I was going to say - they would have stood out like 'sore thumbs' - and indeed their actual complexions in real life - as described in biography - appropriately might have resembled such)Of relevance also is that we know that Turner did produce a watercolor of Hastings from the sea as shown last picture above (I removed it - will relist with it in - can be found on Christies website archive)- although un-dated - probably in a boat as depicted here judging from the painting in the Christies' archive - then possibly on this same trip to Hastings and in this very boat. The colors have survived better than Farington's 2 paintings of the occasion - probably because these are thin washes whereas Turner's colors were / are much thicker. Note that one can just see a sail boat heeling far out in the bay in Farington's painting (the present painting for sale) indicating the conditions further from the shore might be more similar to those seen in Turner's painting.)Turner's mother at the time of this painting was suffering from severe mental illness (possibly related in part to the pigments used by Turner) and in 1799 - 2 years after this painting, she was committed to the asylum. Appropriate perhaps that Turner and his father should be close at this time. If one weighs up the evidence - one is left with the impression that this is a unique and indeed only portrait of Turner and his father together and by Joseph Farington - an important connection in Turner's world at the time. And repeating what I said above. Do you really think Farington would paint Turner and his father 'lookalikes' centrally and being the prime subject of focus within his (only) landscape of Hastings?? (NB The authors have a PhD from the University of Bath researching the forensic analysis of degradation of materials and paint and subsequently conducted research at the Natural History Museum (London) in the same field and one of us has a degree in art and design and was Design Director of the fashion label 'Naughty' ....and so there's nothing we like better than both picking and unpicking a 220 year old mystery in a puzzle )Most of the raw facts have been presented - the image - its authenticity and provenance are beyond denial - one can only hide from it for so long - 9 billion people can see it and make their own judgements about it - with some weight behind this picture - for example The Yale Center for British art - who are foremost experts on Farington's work - and crossing the 'T's' and dotting the 'I's' one could add a million or 2 to its value - or more.. I think the sky is probably the limit...The painting does offer a unique opportunity. I think its only a matter of time before someone wakes up and smells the cheese or even makes a film about Turner and his relation to Farington centered upon this painting.(in passing it appears that the page from Farington's 1797 sketchbook shown below is in fact the headland at White Rock with the route west cut into it. The detailed notes there might thus pertain directly to the making of the present picture which will have been executed further to the right of that picture, nearby, at high tide. ) Images sell! Get Supersized Images & Free Image HostingCreate your brand with Auctiva's Customizable Templates. Attention Sellers - Get Templates Image Hosting, Scheduling at Auctiva.com. Track Page Views With Auctiva's FREE Counter
Price: 750000 GBP
Location: Stockport
End Time: 2024-03-21T11:24:34.000Z
Shipping Cost: 44.96 GBP
Product Images
Item Specifics
Return postage will be paid by: Buyer
Returns Accepted: Returns Accepted
After receiving the item, your buyer should cancel the purchase within: 30 days
Size: Medium (up to 36in.)
Type: Painting
Original/Licensed Reproduction: Original
Artist: Joseph Farington RA 1747-1821
Production Technique: Watercolour Painting
Style: Portrait at Hastings uniquely as it was in 1066
Material: Ink drawn and watercolor epic film rights
Time Period Produced: 1750-1799
Features: Hastings, Unique first hand evidence of 1066 battle template, SEminal source of information concerning 1066, Framed
Subject: Portrait at Hastings 1797 as it was on 28/08/1066.
Year of Production: 1797
Colour: Hastings
Listed By: A unique template rewriting the Battle of Hastings
Date of Creation: 1797 (28/08/1066 - 10.40am)
Width (Inches): 17
Originality: Original - A FIRST HAND - NEW BAYEUX TAPESTRY
Height (Inches): 12.25
