Prof Michael Woods’ thoughtful and supportive discussion of the current controversy around the racist connotations of the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ https://www.historyextra.com/period/anglo-saxon/professor-michael-wood-anglo-saxon-name-debate-is-term-racist/ …
They didn’t destroy everything although there was certainly rhetoric at the time. They integrated and started calling themselves English. The Anglo-Norman ethnonym was also not common and a product of later writings generally. My friend @StephenHewer writes about the term.
-
-
I think these two people (one account) are agreeing with you. I would point out that to be an 'invasion', it must be without consent. But I don't believe there was any anti-invasion legislation in 1066 for the Franci to break.
-
Of course, that last sentence was a bit tongue-in-check. William the bastard did not claim that England needed reform. He claimed to be the lawful heir of Edward.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
They didn't leave much. Winchester, Glastonbury, Canterbury, Westminster, Bristol, Gloucester, Norfolk, Northampton, Newark, Nottingham, York, Durham all lost either their Town/Cathedral or Cathedral to Norman thuggery. Not to mention the concentration camps on South Coast.
-
The records of the harrying of the North may well have been exaggerated. Not saying they didn’t do harm, or even clear out towns etc but many existing structures were repaired by the “invaders” or whatever you want to call them. I would also caution the use of concentration camps
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.