Why do the English say they haven't been invaded since 1066?

>>1470036
It makes me lel that Orangemen in Northern Ireland celebrate the time a homosexual foreigner overthrew the British monarchy

>>1470040
yes

>>1470036
>married to a legitimate successor
>joint reign
Sure thing boyo

File: raising-the-standard-at-glenfinnan-1745-jacobite-rebellion.jpg (129KB, 746x479px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 746x479px

Surely the Jacobite rising of 1745 would count? Yes the majority of the forces loyal to Charles Stuart were Catholic Stuart loyalists in the Highlands and the North of England, but at he same time Charles did land with a series of advisors, and 500 members of the Irish Brigade normally in the service of the crown of France, while the invasion was also sanctioned by the French King - though promised French reinforcements never arrived.

The conflict lasted almost a year, and included both defeats and victories for the government, and featured the final pitched battle on British soil.

>>1470036
I'm not sure. I think it's more that prior to 1066 every invasion had massive cultural, social and political implications while every one since has been either relatively bloodless or insignificant in terms of wider impact. Most people here in the UK have not even heard of the Glorious Revolution or the French invasion of Wight. It'd be like saying that because the allied invasion at Dieppe had wide ranging effects France was invaded by Canadians in 1942.

>>1471515
>because the allied invasion at Dieppe
yet still called an invasion
The point is people say England has not been invaded since 1066

>>1471519
It's just somewhat of a national myth. People think more that we haven't been "conquered" since 1066 which could also be considered inaccurate.