Dispelling Some Myths: A Union Flag in distress

In April 2024 Tastes Of History wrote an article to dispel a couple of popular myths concerning the flying of the Union Flag upside down. The article has received some comments; some more enlightened than others. One deserves an addendum to the original article to clarify that “[I]f hung horizontally or vertically [on a flat surface], the broad white diagonal should be uppermost in the top-left corner.” So, technically whoever hung the flag may have unintentionally done so upside down. But to be charitable, this flag is in a primary school, and if you know anything about the educational sphere then you will know teachers face far too many pressures in multiple different areas for simple mistakes like this to happen. So, while first forgiving whoever made this easily made mistake let us turn to one of the other comments challenging our claim that flying the Union Flag upside down as a distress signal was a myth.

“No names, no pack drill” [1] but the comment in question reads as follows:

“You can not [sic] prove if it was or was not used upside down as a distress signal. Saying it would not be noticed from a distance is moot. It was meant to be a subtle warning so the enemy very probably would not notice it. As I remember it, it was done if the building/base had infiltrators in it to warn those approaching it. It may not have been an official thing to do, but appears to have been done somewhere at some point due to the widespread stories of it.”

The writer of this comment will remain anonymous, but the content gives us an opportunity to critically think about the claims being made. We stress that what follows is not an attack on the person - a roasting if you prefer - since Tastes Of History believes that sort of approach is negative, unnecessary and perpetuates ignorance. Rather we contend that dissecting the claims made will reveal the fragility of the argument but perhaps offer us all a chance to learn. We hope, dear reader, you will agree.

With that caveat in mind, let us begin. The comment writer’s reference to “the enemy” and “the building/base” strongly suggests they are thinking largely in military terms so let us stick with that premise. For many decades now modern armed forces have used encrypted communications. Were a “Forward Operating Base” (FOB) or “Fire Support Base” (FSB) in a hostile or a semi-permissive environment be under attack, being infiltrated or about to be overwhelmed, then the communications network(s) would be awash with information, situation reports (sitreps), updates and requests for support. On operations to hear the phrase “troops in contact” (or something similar) focuses all attention on the troops in question such that friendly forces will be instantly aware of any actual or developing situation, and ready to help. The need to issue a “subtle warning so the enemy very probably would not notice it” does not therefore stand up to scrutiny. Firstly, noticing a Union Flag being flown upside down from a distance is not exactly moot. As we said in the earlier article: “to a casual observer or someone unfamiliar with the flag’s design it is not very easy to spot whether it is orientated correctly”. The chances with the enemy’s focus wholly on assaulting the base and, if under fire, they would care little for an upside down flag whether they realised its supposed significance as a “distress signal” or not.

One would like to think that military personnel would notice but would they see it was a “subtle warning” something was amiss, or would the typical “squaddie” simply think that someone had made a massive, punishable mistake (while perhaps thankful they had not done it). After serving for nearly a quarter of a century in the British Army, alongside Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel, the author has never encountered this idea that flying the flag upside down was a distress signal. No official Ministry of Defence (MoD) or individual service standing orders were issued, no operational orders for deployments included such direction, no unit standard operating procedures (SOPs) mentioned it, there were no unofficial “gentlemen’s” agreements, in fact nothing to substantiate the “distress signal” claim.

The closest reference we could find to date with any proven military connection was on the website of BFBS Forces News [2]. An article published ahead of King Charles III’s coronation celebrations in 2022 questioned, in a country awash with Union Jacks, how many people would unknowingly hang them upside down. Within said article author, Julian Perreira, wrote:

“It is often said that when the Union Flag is flown upside down, it is a form of distress signal – a coded signal – and should only be used as such.”

It is worth highlighting that Mr Perreira did not categorically state that an upside down flag is a distress signal, he merely notes that “it is often said”. In other words, while many people may believe this to be the case, that is not the same as there being any officially recognised, documented proof. Rather the whole “distress signal” notion is predicated on hearsay and uncorroborated word-of-mouth. It is, therefore, just another urban myth, which the Cambridge Dictionary defines as “a story or statement that is not true but is often repeated, and believed by many to be true”.

Returning to our military analogy, where a base is at the very real risk of being overrun, then the defenders undoubtedly will have far more pressing concerns. The most obvious would be directly engaging the enemy and resisting infiltration, but other actions would include destroying cryptographic material and devices, destroying protectively marked (classified) documents, hard drives and recording devices, and generally taking every possible action to deny the enemy any exploitable information and materiel. The belief that someone has time to disengage from the firefight to strike a flag, flip it upside down and fly it once more as a “distress signal”, subtle or not, is just nonsensical.

If still not convinced, then let us consider the weakness of the final sentence in this particular comment which reads:

“It may not have been an official thing to do, but appears to have been done somewhere at some point due to the widespread stories of it.”

Firstly, the writer states using an upside flag as a distress signal was not an officially recognised thing to do. In most mainstream militaries, unofficial actions are frowned upon and not encouraged. Moreover, if not a recognised practice, then that implies leaving a lot of service personnel completely ignorant of said “distress signal”. In other words, if personnel are not briefed or trained to look for this subtle signal then they will not recognise the significance, nor take the appropriate action (whatever that might be), and more dangerously could walk straight into an ambush. Despite this the comment writer contests that flying flags upside down was done somewhere, by someone, at some time, so it must be true. Yet in providing no evidence to support this ambiguous statement, the writer rather neatly commits the very thing they accuse Tastes Of History of doing at the comment’s beginning, that is, not providing evidence for or against the distress signal idea. Except we did.

We stated quite clearly that the authoritative publication on “Flying Flags in the United Kingdom” makes no mention of the practice. Indeed, we can find no official UK governmental or MoD documentation that establishes definitively the practice of flying a Union Flag upside down as a distress signal applicable to the armed forces or anyone else. There are, however, many mentions of the upside down flag as a distress signal in online discussions or articles on the correct way to fly the Union Flag. Are these frequent mentions “the widespread stories of it” happening? If so, then we return to the very definition of an urban myth. Flying the Union Flag upside down as a distress signal may be often repeated and believed by many, but it is simply not true.

If, dear reader, you know otherwise and can provide documentary evidence from an official source, then let us know because every day should be a learning day. Bon appétit!

References:

Cambridge Dictionary, (2025), “Urban Myth”, Cambridge University Press & Assessment website, available online (accessed 8 October 2025).

Perreira, J, (2022), “Union Jack: Do you know the correct way up?”, bfbs Forces News, available online (accessed 8 October 2025).

Endnotes:

1. “No names, no pack drill” has its origins in the British Army where “pack drill” refers to a punishment involving soldiers carrying heavy packs during exercise or drills. The phrase implies that if an individual is not named then there can be no recriminations or punishment for their actions.

2. The British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS) provides radio and television programmes for His Majesty's Armed Forces and their dependents worldwide.

On This Day: Caesar’s assassins’ last stand

October 23rd, 42 BC: After two days of fighting near Philippi in northeast Greece the self-styled Libertores (“the Liberators”) met their fate. Having absconded to the eastern provinces of the Roman Republic following the murder of Gaius Julius Caesar on Idibus Martiis [1] two years earlier (44 BC), the leading assassins Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus controlled much of the eastern Mediterranean. Meanwhile a triumvirate was forged between Caesar’s right-hand man, Marcus Antonius (“Mark Antony”); his named heir and great-nephew, Gaius Octavius (“Octavian”); and Legatus (general) Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. Together they secured control of Rome and its western provinces. Leaving Lepidus in Italy, Antony and Octavian set out to confront their enemies.

On October 3rd, with Octavian’s army in danger of being overwhelmed by Brutus’ legions outside Philippi, Antony was compelled to divert his forces away from a clash with Cassius’ flank. The latter mistook the ensuing confusion for defeat and promptly committed suicide. Thus, the first battle of Philippi ended with no clear victor.

Aware that his legions were contemptuous of his command but needing their continued support, and that the Caesarians were reliant on supplies shipped from Italy across the Adriatic, Brutus resolved to wait it out. Battle re-joined on October 23rd, however. A savage encounter ensued until Antony’s cavalry routed the remnant of Brutus’ legions. Fleeing into the surrounding hills, Brutus followed his fellow Liberator’s example and fell on his sword. Eventually Antony discovered the lifeless body and, so the sources claim, ordered that it be wrapped in a purple tunic and cremated. Brutus’ ashes were returned to his mother in Rome. The civil war that rent Rome after Caesar’s murder had ended in defeat for his assassins.

Bon appétit!

Endnote:

1. Idibus Martiis or the “Ides of March” equates to the 15th of that month.

The Bayeux Tapestry

The Bayeux Museum in Normandy which houses The Bayeux Tapestry is set to close for renovation from 1st September 2025 until October 2027. There has been a rumour for a while now that the Tapestry might return to England so the perfect opportunity for this to happen is created by the museum’s refurbishment. Indeed, on 8th July 2025 the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) confirmed the Bayeux Tapestry will be displayed in a special exhibition in the British Museum from next Autumn until July 2027. Coincidentally, 2027 is also the 1000th anniversary of the birth of William I, the Conqueror. Regardless, now there is no excuse for Tastes Of History not to see in person this iconic historical record.

Tapestry? Surely, it’s an embroidery?

For those not familiar with the Bayeux Tapestry, it is an embroidered cloth measuring nearly 70 metres (230 ft) long and 500 mm (20 in) tall. It depicts, in “cartoon”-like form, the events leading up to the Norman conquest of England in 1066. In that year William, Duke of Normandy, challenged King Harold II for the English throne, a challenge that culminated in the day long fight now known as the Battle of Hastings on October 14th. For centuries the tapestry has been preserved in Bayeux, Normandy.

The Tapestry is thought to date to the 11th-century having been completed within a few years of the pivotal battle. Widely accepted as being made in England in the 1070s, possibly as a gift for William, it tells the story from the Norman point of view. The cloth comprises 58 scenes, many with accompanying Latin text (tituli [1]), embroidered on linen using coloured woollen yarns. Significantly the designs are embroidered rather than woven and thus the cloth does not meet the narrower definitions of a tapestry. Despite this it has been referred to as a tapestry for so long that, perhaps to the annoyance of many pedants, changing the name to “The Bayeux Embroidery” has yet to gain popular traction.

Scholarly analysis in the 20th-century concluded that the Tapestry was probably commissioned by William's maternal half-brother, Bishop Odo of Bayeux who, after the Conquest, became Earl of Kent and, when William was absent in Normandy, regent of England. Odo as the commissioner is hypothesised because, firstly, three of his followers mentioned in the Domesday Book appear on the tapestry; secondly, it was found in Bayeux Cathedral also commissioned by Odo, and finally it may have been fashioned at the same time as the cathedral's construction in the 1070s. It is thus thought that the Tapestry was possibly completed by 1077 in time to be displayed at the cathedral's dedication.

Whether or not the tapestry was commissioned by Bishop Odo, it is widely held to have been designed and constructed in England by Anglo-Saxon embroiderers. This makes some sense since Odo's main power base was by then in Kent and there are other, similar embroideries originating in England around the same time. Moreover, the vegetable dyes used to colour the woollen threads can also be found in cloth traditionally woven in England, and even the Latin text contains hints of Anglo-Saxon expressions.

Construction

Nine embroidered tabby-woven linen panels, between 3 m and 14 m long, were sewn together to produce one continuous cloth. At the very first join the borders do not align neatly but as the embroiderers’ technique improved, the joins became invisible especially where they were subsequently disguised with needlework. The design has a broad central zone with narrow decorative borders top and bottom. Two methods of stitching in crewel (wool yarn) were used: outline or stem stitch for lettering and the outlines of figures, and couching or laid work for filling in figures.

The start of the tapestry has been restored somewhat and over the centuries the cloth has been patched in numerous places. Some of the embroidery, especially in the final scene, has also been reworked, albeit with some regard for the original stitching. That final scene, however, does not mark the end of the tapestry; that has been missing from time immemorial, and the final titulus “Et fuga verterunt Angli” (“and the English left fleeing”) is said to be “entirely spurious”. It is thought to have been added shortly before 1814 at a time of anti-English sentiment. Despite the repairs and reworking, the tapestry seems to have maintained much of its original appearance when compared closely with a detailed drawing made in 1730.

What does it depict?

The tapestry tells the story of the events of 1064–1066, culminating in the Battle of Hastings, through a series of pictures with supporting Latin text. The two main protagonists are Harold Godwinson, recently crowned King of England, leading the Anglo-Saxon English, and William, Duke of Normandy, leading a mainly Norman army.

William was born in 1027, or more likely towards the end of 1028, in Falaise in the Duchy of Normandy. As the illegitimate son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, and Herleva (or Arlette), a daughter of Fulbert of Falaise who may have been a tanner or embalmer, for much of his life he was known as “William the Bastard”. His mother may have been a member of the ducal household but did not marry Robert. She did, however, later marry Herluin de Conteville with whom she had two sons – Odo of Bayeux and Count Robert of Mortain – and a daughter whose name is unknown. During William’s minority one of Herleva's brothers, Walter, became his supporter and protector until, as the only son of Robert I, William became Duke of Normandy at the age of seven. By the age of nineteen he was in control of Normandy.

At the time the tapestry starts its narration, England’s king, Edward the Confessor, was about sixty years old, childless and without any clear successor. In the 11th-century accession to the English throne was not by primogeniture whereby the firstborn son succeeded his father. Rather, succession was decided jointly by the king and an assembly of the Anglo-Saxon nobility known as the Witenagemot. The most powerful member of that council was Godwin, Earl of Wessex. As part of the complex ties of kinship and familial relationships, Edward had married Edith, Godwin’s daughter, in 1043 thus making Godwin’s son, Harold Godwinson, Edward's brother-in-law. By 1050 relations between the King and the Earl Godwin had soured, escalating to a crisis in 1051 and the resultant exile of Godwin and his family from England. It was during this exile that, in 1051, Edward offered the throne to William whose great aunt, Emma of Normandy, was Edward's mother. In 1052 Godwin returned from exile with an armed force whereupon a settlement was reached between the King and the Earl restoring the latter and his family to their lands. Earl Godwin died a year later, and Harold succeeded to his father's earldom. Harold’s brother, Tostig, became Earl of Northumbria and later his other brothers were also given earldoms: Gyrth as Earl of East Anglia in 1057 and Leofwine as Earl of Kent sometime between 1055 and 1057.

According to the Norman chronicler William of Poitiers, Harold had reputedly sworn to honour William’s succession to the English throne in accordance with the wishes of King Edward. Some sources even claim that Harold, having taken part in William's Breton campaign of 1064, had sworn on holy relics to uphold William's claim. No English source, however, records the trip and it remains unclear if it, and the related oathtaking, occurred at all. It is just possible that the whole episode was Norman propaganda intended to discredit Harold who, by early 1066, had emerged as the main contender to succeed King Edward.

1066 and all that

On 5th January 1066, after 24 years as king, Edward died. Shortly before he had probably entrusted the kingdom to his wife, Edith of Wessex, and to Edith’s brother, none other than Harold Godwinson. Indeed, Harold claimed Edward, on his deathbed, had made him heir over William. Whether true or not, the Anglo-Saxon nobles of the Witenagemot convened and confirmed Harold’s succession. The following day, January 6th, Edward was buried in Westminster Abbey and Harold was crowned becoming, it is believed, the first English monarch to be crowned in the Abbey.

According once more to the account of William of Poitiers, King Harold II sent an envoy to Duke William shortly before the Battle of Hastings. On behalf of Harold, the envoy admitted that Edward had promised the throne to William but argued that this was over-ridden by his deathbed promise to Harold. In reply, William did not dispute the deathbed promise but argued that Edward's prior promise to him took precedence.

On hearing of Harold's coronation, Duke William began plans to invade England. Seven hundred 700 warships and transports were built at Dives-sur-Mer on the Normandy coast, but William lacked Papal support for the invasion. However, by claiming that Harold had sworn on sacred relics to support William’s claim to the English throne, he eventually received the Church's blessing and Norman nobles flocked to his cause. Across the Channel and in anticipation of the invasion, Harold assembled 1,400 men of the Fyrd on the Isle of Wight. These men only expected to serve for two months under command of their respective Eorl, Bishop or Shire Reeve (sheriff) but, possibly because of unfavourable winds, William’s invasion fleet remained in port for almost seven months. After waiting all summer on the South coast for William’s expected invasion, and with provisions running out, on September 8th Harold was forced to disband the Fyrd. As his army returned to their villages to bring in the harvest, Harold headed to London.

Four days later, on September 12th, Duke William's fleet sailed from Normandy. Several ships sank in storms, which forced the fleet to take shelter at Saint-Valery-sur-Somme and to wait once more for the wind to change.

Vikings!

What follows next is not recorded on the Tapestry as it does not involve William or his fellow Normans. For completeness, however, on the very same day the King of Norway, Harald Hardrada, who also claimed the English crown, invaded. According to most contemporary sources, the Norwegian king and Tostig, King Harold’s brother, met at Tynemouth, a town literally at the mouth of the River Tyne. Harald Hardrada had a force of, at the most, around 10,000 to 15,000 men on between 240 and 300 longships, while Tostig had a mere 12 ships with soldiers.

Meanwhile, on September 20th, the invading forces of Hardrada, which means “hard ruler”, and Tostig defeated the English earls Edwin of Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria at the Battle of Fulford 2 miles South of York. The battle was a decisive victory for Harald and Tostig and led the people of York to surrender to them four days later. This would be the last time a Scandinavian army defeated English forces. however.

Learning of the Viking invasion, King Harold had led his army North on a forced march from London, reaching Yorkshire in four days. The same day as York surrendered to Harald and Tostig, Harold Godwinson arrived with his army in Tadcaster, just seven miles from the anchored Norwegian fleet at Riccall. From there he probably scouted the Norwegian fleet in preparation for a surprise attack but, as Hardrada had left no forces in York, King Harold marched right through the town to Stamford Bridge.

Early on September 25th, Hardrada and Tostig departed their landing place at Riccall with most of their forces, leaving a third behind to protect the ships. The Norwegians wore light armour as they were only expecting to meet the citizens of York at Stamford Bridge, as agreed the day before, to decide who should manage the town under Hardrada. At the meeting point the Norwegians saw King Harold's host approaching, heavily armed and armoured, and greatly outnumbering Hardrada's force. The Anglo-Saxon’s forced march had caught Hardrada and Tostig by surprise.

According to Snorri Sturluson, before the battle a single man rode up to Harald Hardrada and Tostig. He gave no name, but spoke to Tostig, offering the return of his earldom if he would turn against Hardrada. Tostig asked what his brother Harold would be willing to give Hardrada for his trouble. The rider replied: “Seven feet of English ground, as he is taller than other men” before riding back to the Saxon host. Hardrada was impressed by the rider's boldness, and asked Tostig who he was. Tostig replied that the rider was Harold Godwinson himself.

The Norwegian army was decisively beaten, with both Hardrada and Tostig killed. Hardrada wearing no body armour fought in a state of berserkergang (berserker fury) with his sword in two hands until he was struck in the throat by an arrow and killed early in the battle. Although sources state that Hardrada's remaining army only filled 20 to 25 ships on the return to Norway, it is likely that this number only accounts for the Norwegian forces. Most of the men hailing from Scotland and Orkney probably remained at Riccall throughout the battle and were not counted in the traditional figure. Even so, this was the last Viking invasion of England.

The Battle of Hastings

Delayed by wind and tides the Norman fleet finally set sail for England on September 27th. William’s force arrived the following day at Pevensey on the coast of East Sussex where perhaps 7,000 men were landed. Meanwhile, celebrations over the Battle of Stamford Bridge were short-lived. With the Normans arrival, King Harold was forced to march his army South, covering 27 miles/day for 241 miles, to intercept William. On October 13th Harold established his army in hastily built earthworks at Caldbec Hill some 8 miles from William’s castle in Hastings. The following day, October 14th, the Anglo-Saxon army took position on Senlac Hill (near the present town of Battle) near Hastings. From his base, now only 6 miles away, William’s army advanced to meet Harold’s clashing in what we now call the “Battle of Hastings”. After nine hours of hard fighting, Harold was killed, and his forces defeated. Harold’s brothers Gyrth and Leofwine were also killed in the battle, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

Arrow in the eye

The notion that Harold died by an arrow to the eye is a popular belief today, but the identification of England’s king in the vignette depicting his death is disputed. A Norman account of the battle, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio (“Song of the Battle of Hastings”), said to have been written shortly after the battle by Guy, Bishop of Amiens, says that Harold was killed by four knights, probably including Duke William, and his body dismembered. Much later (12th-century) Anglo-Norman histories (such as William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum Anglorum and Henry of Huntingdon's Historia Anglorum) recount that Harold died by an arrow wound to his head. Later accounts reflect one or both of these two versions.

The figure in the panel of the Bayeux Tapestry containing the inscription “hic Harold Rex Interfectus Est” (“here Harold the King has been killed”) is certainly depicted gripping an arrow that has struck his eye. Many believe the figure with an arrow in his eye must be the king because he is directly beneath the name “Harold”. However, examination of other examples from the Tapestry reveal that the visual centre of a scene, not the location of the inscription, identifies named figures. Some historians, therefore, have questioned whether this man is intended to be Harold or if Harold is supposedly the next figure lying to the right almost supine, being mutilated beneath a horse's hooves. Moreover, some contest that the arrow is a later 18th- or 19th-century modification following a period of repair. In Benoît's engraving of 1729, for example, and in Bernard de Montfaucon's engravings of the tapestry as it was in 1730, a spear or lance is shown in place of the arrow and certainly no fletching. On close inspection, needle holes in the linen suggest something has been removed, or shortened, and fletching added to form an arrow.

A figure is slain with a sword in the subsequent panel, and the titulus above this figure refers to Harold's death (interfectus est, “he was killed”). It is more likely that this figure is intended to be the king slain by the Norman knights attested in the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio. The reference to Harold’s body being dismembered is supported by one account stating: “the two brothers of the King were found near him and Harold himself, stripped of all badges of honour, could not be identified by his face but only by certain marks on his body.” Another source states that Harold's widow, Edith Swanneck [2], was called to identify the body, which she did by some private mark known only to her. Either way, evidence from the Tapestry clearly shows Norman archers at work and it was a tried and tested tactic to loose a volley of arrows at the enemy before a Norman cavalry charge. Perhaps both accounts are accurate and that Harold suffered first the eye wound, then the mutilation, and the Tapestry is depicting both in one scene. Bon appétit!

Endnotes:

1. The term tituli (Latin “inscriptions” or “labels”, sing. titulus) refers to the labels or captions that name figures or subjects that were commonly added to classical and medieval art.

2. “Swanneck” comes from the folk etymology which made her in Old English as swann hnecca, “swan neck”, which was most likely a corrupted form of swann hnesce, “gentle swan”.