1066 French conquest of England

>>3231389
I'm from England (South West London to be specific). I think people who still make a big deal about it are massive babies. The Norman conquest was one of the best things to happen to us. English patriotism is a goddamn cancer. Stop clinging to the past and our so called 'glory days' and move the fuck on.

>The last time we were invaded and taken over

>What is the """Glorious"""" """"Revolution"""""

>>3231389
>tfw a cheeky cunt in 4th grade named Samwise would brag about his superior English education over our American education and one day when we were supposed to do speeches about our backgrounds I did mine on my Norman ancestors ravaging Britain and clucky little Sam got all butthurt with his parents in the audience watching
Highlight of my life desu

>>3231417
>Stop clinging to the past and our so called 'glory days' and move the fuck on.

Well...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8424904/People-with-Norman-names-wealthier-than-other-Britons.html

>>3231389
Weren't the Normans originally from Northern Europe? They were only "French" for about a hundred years or so, enough time to adopt the language and culture but not enough time for the genetics.

>>3231417
REEEE STOP HAVING STRONG FEELINGS AND OPINIONS ABOUT THINGS

File: 3ae.png (71KB, 343x400px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 343x400px

>>3231417
>(((us)))

>>3231452
>Weren't the Normans originally from Northern Europe?
"Originally" as in "had a far Nordic ancestor from 8 generations ago"

>enough time to adopt the language and culture but not enough time for the genetics.
Pretty uneducated on the topic I see
Normans were very few to seetkled, and almost exclusively men
They massivelly interbred with locals for eight generations
It means that Rollo's son (2nd generation) was already 50% French (through his mom) and 50% Norse
Then Rollo's grandson (3rd generation) was 25% Norse and 75% French

I let you calculate how French and Norse the men of the eighth generation (those who invaded England in 1066) were

>>3231452
They were vikings who settled in France, yeah. And nobody ever argues (or at least I've never heard an argument) about genetics when it comes to the Normans, it's always about muh culture and muh language much in the same way Catalans complain about Spanish """"""tyranny"""""" today.

The Normans changed the charcater of England, and its especially hurtful given that they were French, Britain's greatest historical enemy.

>>3231452
Yup Rolf and the gang were Danes and after plundering France in general and Paris in particular, the French King, Charles the simple, gave them the Normandy in 911. The upper class was Danes, the peasants where French.

Fun fact, Rollo was official Christian, non the less he had 100 human sacrifices for his funeral.

File: 1501264450545.png (2MB, 800x3857px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x3857px

>>3231389

did you know that William the Conquerer was a BLACK MAN?!?

>>3231448
And people think success isn't genetic

>>3231433

what is the """"""refugee""""" """""crisis""""""

>>3231389
I'm from England and no, the vast majority couldn't care less about it (or history in general), a small fraction who know a bit about it realise it was one the shaping moments in our history (and should be recognised as such), and an even tinier fraction are still butthurt because their level of understanding doesn't go beyond FRENCH CONQUERORS=BAD

So no, most people don't think twice about it and the small portion who are educated in history recognise its significance. I think the idea of not caring about it comes from the fact that its done to death in secondary school history class to the point where no adult (except those with a genuine interest) want to read about it any further. A bit like Shakespeare in English Lit

>>3231459
Eat my ass, kek baby

>>3231455
Weeeeeeeee

File: Doublesman.gif (2MB, 410x272px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 410x272px

>>3231585

fun fact: every conqueror of Britain was invited over, Verica of the Atrebates tribe invited the Romans, Vortigern invited the Saxons, Edward the Confessor chose William as his successor and parliament invited William III the Prince of Orange

>>3231448
Git good John Smith

File: images.jpg (9KB, 186x271px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 186x271px

>>3231597

>>3231598
>and parliament invited William III the Prince of Orange
Do British really believe that? There was no parliament in 1685. Only 7 men invited William III.

File: !!!.gif (14KB, 432x226px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 432x226px

>>3231616

File: The Normans-35.jpg (3MB, 4090x2612px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4090x2612px

>>3231389
>French Conquest.
I'm sorry. Did the King of France task William of Normandy to conquer England and add it to his realm?

Oh wait, he didn't, right? The Norman Dukes only gave lip service to their supposed fealty to the French kings but they were de Facto independent. As such the Norman duke could do shit like "be promised a throne by some other king."

Heck the Normans can't even control their own people, who love to leave the place in search of adventures elsewhere. Such was the weakness of the Capetian dynasty at the time.

Some "French" Invasion that was.

>>3231692
>I'm sorry. Did the King of France task William of Normandy to conquer England and add it to his realm?

No, that's why it's called French conquest and not French Kingdom's conquest
It's named after the ethnicity of invaders, not their faction

If the CSA had invaded Mexico during the Civil War, it'd still be an American invasion of Mexico

>>3231692
They refer to themselves as Franci in the Bayeux tapestry.

>>3231724
>Ethnicity of the conquerors.
You mean the Normans?

>"Waah they spoke French referred to themselves as Franks in the Bayeaux Tapestry"
And then subsequently shilled the memes of "Gens Normanorum" (Norman nation/tribe) and "Normanitas" ("Normaness") in order to differentiate themselves from their Saxon subjects and from notions of French so that the French King couldn't call them out.

File: 1423442059922.jpg (69KB, 508x513px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 508x513px

>>3231417

I'm a bit mixed on it myself. I would have preferred if England had retained a strong Latin influence and avoided the adoption of Anglo-Saxon, just to see how things would be different. However I would have also liked to see how Anglo-Saxon as a culture and language would have developed without a Norman conquest.

Just imagine the relationship between France and a Latin speaking "England" with an unmolested language and culture that was allowed to develop in the same way the other Romance languages have. I would have also liked to see how the world would change if England was unmistakably Germanic in language and culture.

The Godwinsons deserved what they got however. Dane cocksuckers the lot of them.

Why is the idea of a clean difference between Normans and French people so deeply ingrained in the minds of British people? They are talking like Normans were as nordic as the Norwegian that also invaded them in 1066. You are talking about a few tens of thousands of vikings settling over the years in one of the most populous areas in France (~800,000 at the time) which actively married with the locals, and in 1066, a few generations had already passed.

>>3231389
>Are modern Brits unironically still buttdevasted by the 1066 French conquest?
No, we're not, it's an interesting part of our history and the part that set us onto greatness.

>>3231433
shhh

>>3231724
But it's called the Norman Conquest. Because Normans did it.

>>3232516
Its called the Norman conquest because it was an invasion by a Norman duke with Norman people from the Normandy region.

The English counter invasions weren't called British invasions, because Britain wasn't a thing yet, just like how Normandy wasn't France then.

>>3232248
>censoring it

File: Hastings Feels.png (2MB, 1200x854px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x854px

The Battle of Hastings was the greatest tragedy to befall the English people. England as they knew it died on that day.

>>3231734

You mean Anglo-Saxons, such as the maker of the tapestry, referred to them as French. They saw themselves as distinctively Norman

>>3234049
The Tapestry was ordered and overseen by William's brother
They corisidered themselves as both Normans and French, as these two things arent opposed (Normans are a subcategory of French, like Welsh for British)

>>3234049
I don't think people really believe France Invaded England. They react to English wishful thinking. English like to pretend Normans have nothing in common with French, and were blue eyes Nordic master race. We all know it's not true, Normans spoke French, were catholics, had similar political structures compared with the other lords of France. The Norman invasion left many traces, a lot of French words are still in the English language, and politically, England was way more connected with the continent (and France) than with the Nordic world (as it was before).

>>3231470
>They massivelly interbred with locals for eight generations

Proofs? The dynastic marriages of the count aren't necessarily representative of the warrior class as a whole. What might have happened: The first generation of the invaders either brought wives from home or took local wives. This resulted in the creation of a creolized warrior class, whose members subsequently married among themselves.

>>3234064
>The Tapestry was ordered and overseen by William's brother

Ordered yes, overseen no. The writings on the tapestry are only indicative of the views of its likely Anglo-Saxon creator.

>>3234076
Many accounts on the topic
We know very well that Rollo's vikings didnt go back home to fetch females
They were almost entirely males when they settled, and they interbred with locals

>>3234091
Don't be retarded
Dude was an all powerful lord in a defeated country
Had he not be pleased with being called "French" he'd had have it done again with "Normans" instead

>>3231440

> things that never happened

>>3231389
>French Conquest
WE

>>3234196
It's literally in the Economist's article, and they're Brits
Only super butthurt delusional faggots wont admit that Normans were French

>>3234211
The Economist is shit lad, just saying.

>>3234196
>A vassal of the French king invade a kingdom
>It become part of the kingdom of France

>>3231389
>the norman yoke meme

The eternal kryptonite for the eternal anglo

frankish women were made for nordic cock

>>3234245
And English women (once a bag has been put on their heads) are made for their Franco-Nordic offsprings

>>3231479

None of those are William...

>>3234097

This. Also William the Conquerer himself refers to them as French in his charter for London.

>>3234093

>no proofs

and the fact that they initially married local females due to a shortage of women doesn't mean that following generations kept outbreeding

>>3234039
Wish more things like it would've happened to you cunts

>>3234285
>and the fact that they initially married local females due to a shortage of women doesn't mean that following generations kept outbreeding

Even if that was true, these "following generations" would already be heavily Frenchified by the initial interbreeding
There is literally no way Normans could have remained more genetically Norse than French after eight generations in this context, get over it

>>3231389
The average "Brit" today (aka Nigger or Paki) probably has no concept of the Norman invasion of England.

File: normans1.png (23KB, 1132x155px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 1132x155px

>>3231389
Normans are the ancestors of English people

>>3234301

Well, the original claim was that the Norse ancestry was almost completely diluted, for which no proofs have been provided. It's also conceivable that the French upper class spouses of the Northmen had significantly more Germanic (Frankish and Saxon) ancestry than the common inhabitants of Normandy.

>>3234039
If only that nigger Edward would have given England to Magnus the Good, then none of this would have happened

>>3231389
NOOO WE WERE BLOND BLUE EYED VIKINGS!

File: norman identity.png (708KB, 1164x1368px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 1164x1368px

>>3234097
>>3234267

The use of French for Normans either comes from English scribes or it was used as a convenient umbrella term for the different invading groups that were nominally under the French crown (Normans, Flemings, Bretons).

Normans had developed their own identity, their chroniclers highlighted their Scandinavian origin and celebrated the deeds of their Norman ancestors, not of the French in general.

That's what historians say at least, maybe you should finally come to terms with it.

>>3231389
What part of the army was actually Norman and not French, Brittonic or Flemish?

>>3234400
>That's what historians say at least

Biased butthurt British historians
All other countries historians agree they were French

File: wuz.png (517KB, 806x768px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 806x768px

>>3234525
>norsemen settle in what is now france and intermarry with the locals for a few centuries
>they're french brah
>their descendants settle in what is now england and intermarry with the locals for nearly 1,000 years
>now they're even more french brah

such impeccable logic

>>3234400

>the Normans are just going to let the English write what they like and won't double check how they're being referred to
>they also won't use Norman scribes who can also write in English

>>3234602
No one claims that descendents of Normans in England are still French nowdays, tard

Why does it matter whether the Normans were genetically more Scandinavian or French?

In the end they still BTFO'd Anglo Saxons

>>3231481
nobody actually thinks that its just taboo to even mention it because how dare you question the system, get back to work!

>>3234625
Why does it matter if they introduced Romance terminology and new architecture from what we now refer to as France?
In the end they are still the forebears of the modern English people

>>3234625
Because for some reason, Brits find it more humiliating to have been conquered by the French who later conquered all of Europe, than by a bunch of goat fuckers who raided some coasts and then did nothing for a millenium

daily reminder that harald hardrada was the rightful king of england

>>3231389
apart from a few crazy english nationalists no. i once came across a group of such dipshits who were campaigning to have all words with french roots removed from the english dictionary

>>3231389
>Calling the Norman conquest the "French conquest"

Fuck off froggie, Normans=/=Frogs

>>3234663
>Fuck off froggie

The Economist isnt French press, butthurt bong
Not all of your countrymen are in revisionist denial like you

>>3231485
Not conquered yet, you don't see the Paki party in charge.

>>3234663
>Normans=/=Frogs
even though they spoke frog, fought with frogs, married frogs for generations, and swore fealty to frogs?

>>3234693
>Implying I'm a bong
>Implying the Economist isn't a globalist Yank rag

Try harder Pierre

>>3231389
In my experience nobody gives a shit. Blame Edward the Confessor for being unable to make up his mind.

>>3234735
They're still only a vassal state, not part of France.
Describing the Norman conquest as the French invading England when they're separate states is fucking retarded, because then that would mean that France would later be seizing French territories to reduce the growth of France's power in their wars against France's ally Scotland.

>>3231692
you were cucked by danes

>>3234847
>Describing the Norman conquest as the French invading England when they're separate states is fucking retarded

They were a French state among others, like the Kingdom of France, the Angevin Empire, the Duchy of Burgundy...etc
You seem to confuse "French" (as an ethnicity) with "part of the Kingdom of France" (the political faction/entity)

If Taiwan invades Vietnam, it'll still be a Chinese invasion, although not by the PRC

>>3234091
retard

>>3232818
Normans are ethnically French.

>>3231389
In all my life I have never remotely come across anyone that is "buttdevestated" about 1066. In fact it is generally seen as the start of English history and our current line of monarchs.

>>3234298
Not him but to be fair the idea of "us cunts" that would leave you with such an opinion was what english is today; a bastardised mix of saxon and norman culture. Very different from Englaland of before.

All the anglo saxon damage control

>>3231481
you realize the normans were the only ones allowed to be aristocrats, right?

>>3234847
Edward was in a tougher position than many realise. At the time England was extremely decentralised, the Godwinsons basically controlled the country and the north of the Kingdom was almost semi-independent. The Godwinson family were basically Danes who wanted a Danish King and were forced to settle with Edward after all possible Danish Kings died. Even then Edward was probably forced to marry in to the Godwinson family for the throne, a marriage so dysfunctional the guy became known as a saint for it. His hands regrading succession were tied. He needed Norman support to get rid of the Godwinsons which was successful and he was even going to divorce his wife and probably marry a Norman girl to secure an alliance but the Godwinsons staged a return and he folded. He probably died a puppet of Harold who at this point had set the stage for a dynastic take over.

>>3231389
>Nigel Farage is against the French Conquest of England

Farage is literally a French name without this conquest he would not exist

>>3234400
>French referred to the people of Ile de France
>Ile de France didn't exist at that time
Anglo Historian are ridiculous

By the way !
French in its least inclusive acception refered to the people living between Rheims and Orleans, then in a mild acception it refered to the people living between the Loire and the Carbonarian Forest, in a wider acception it refered to the people living between the Loire and the Rhine, and in its widest acception it refered to the people living in the former Gaul

People don't seem to realize that while Frank/French was used as an umbrella term there were several ethnicities in France at this time. Breton, Gascon, Norman, Fleming etc. They spoke a French Dialect but had their own identity.

This invasion was a private Norman venture with little impact from those who considered themselves purely French and is named as such.

>>3231417
Good goy

>>3231389
Since when are normans french?

>>3231389
Idk, my country calls it «the norman invasion» too

Not really. was nearly 1000 years ago and most people are only vaguely aware of it anyway. I do think that the aristocracy being taken over by them is a big part of why british attiudes to class are so hostile.

File: 7dd6dd_ee0997b4e18f5e5a42d4e0c4f11827e3.gif (184KB, 736x795px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 736x795px

>>3236306
>there were several ethnicities in France at this time. Breton, Gascon, Norman, Fleming etc. They spoke a French Dialect but had their own identity.

Wrong
Breton, Gascons and Flemish did indeed have their own indentities and dialect, that really varied from regular French
Normans however were in the "pure" langue d'oil area

Basically, there were indeed diffferent people with different dialects and culture within France back then (like Bretons, Gascons, Flemish...), but Normans werent one of them, they were part of the core French aera

>>3231389
No because there was no French conquest of 1066, there was a Norman invasion. To use the term French before the crusader states let alone the hundred years is a great misnomer, and is like believing El Cid fought for a unified Iberia under the hapsburgs
Also the king of England has always been English, and in the case of king of Great Britain, British.
The glorious revolution changed England's destiny but merely from one English faction to another English faction, and the phrase Revolution is more apt to describe how parts of the monarchs powers returned to as that before 1066, rather than a complete change like the French Revolution

>>3238544
*the Hundred Years' War is the arrival of the English and French identities, whilst the British identities existed for a moment with Edward hammer of the Scots, but gained momentum under James I Stuart, king of England, Scotland and ireland

>>3238425
That may have been the case later, but in 1066, the king of France was weak, so if he could not stop his vassal going to war, how would a language remain constant, especially given the different populations

>>3236166
Actually he's a Huegonaut descendant, without the Norman conquest England could have even become a Hussite kingdom

>>3238560
Politics =/= culture, tard
The oil area had been like that since much before 1066
When the Normans arrived in 911, they arrived in an area of pure French language and integrated to it
That's why their culture by 1066 was French regardless of the power held by the king at the time

>>3238562
Aren't Huguenots french protestants?

>>3234602
they're arguing about the fact they were french during the invasion you fucking retarted shitposter

FRENCHED.com

>>3234069
>English like to pretend Normans have nothing in common with French, and were blue eyes Nordic master race. We all know it's not true, Normans spoke French, were catholics, had similar political structures compared with the other lords of France.
To be fair, Harald Hardrade was also Catholic. Not like religion was some sort of differentiating force in the invasions of 1066.