[Not loaded yet]
Only slightly exagerating - the foundational act for England was the invasion of Ireland.
Idk when that happened. 1066 is engraved on my heart.
167 years after the Declaration of Independence, the US was about to enter WW2 on the side of the Allies. Would you say the US was not a country on that date?
Post a rather nasty civil war. That had decided the question and "The United States are" became "The United States is" (someone said). Lets hope that holds.
1066 was the start of replacing the Scandinavian diaspora. There's a decent case that a true England people would recognise today only emerged c12 under Henry II and he used invading Ireland - in part - to define "English" in opposition to the "primitive" Irish (and Welsh).
If you consult profs of Anglo Saxon literature, they will tell you that the English had a sense of themselves as a nation (they called themselves the Englisc) before even the reign of Alfred the Great. Edward the Elder is just a convenient first king because he managed to get the allegiance of all
Feb 5, 2026 07:33earls. The US had another nasty Civil War after the War of Independence, and it only obtained the territory it controls now shortly before WW2.
My question to you is *which* invasion of Ireland do you think created the English nation?
By the same token, Ireland was occupied by England several times, but I sense that you would thonk that it was still Ireland before, during and after occupation. It follows that Bede's England would still be England before, during and after occupation by the Danes. It is still England now, even
though the Norman's descendants are *still* in occupation today.
In any case, most English people couldn't put a date on Henry II's invasion of Ireland, but they all know 1066 was the date of the Norman Conquest, and they all know about William the Bastard.
Don't you think nations should be able to choose their origin stories themselves?
Henry II is much more important to the Irish, I would say. His sons are better known in England. In any event, the 1200s is still in the period where the Plantagenets and Norman nobility did not trust the English themselves to have weapons. As I understand it, they were still using French, Breton
and Welsh footsoldiers.
Weren’t the Normans part of the Scandinavian diaspora?
There were a lot of Bretons and nobility from the French speaking areas of the low countries in there too. I don't think the idea of them as Scandinavian really holds, especially since, in comparison to Harold, Töstig and Harald Hardrada, they were useless sailors.
You might enjoy "Conquered: The last children of Anglo-Saxon England" by Eleanor Parker (academic but not a tough read) which looks at named individuals post-1066, some of mixed Anglo-Norman heritage.
Very interesting on identity and anxieties around it for a conquered people.
(Also fascinating on how mobile and cosmopolitan the elites were, with Edgar Atheling's Hungarian background and Harold's descendants ending up in Kyiv.)
For more in-depth stuff around the Irish Conquest period, the late R R Davies is excellent (Welsh and fair-minded.)
My Mum is currently reading it and has promised a lend once she finishes.
I think it is absolutely clear there's a strong English identity by 1066, which is precisely why they are scared about what is going to happen to them as a subject race. (The Hereward chapter is good on that.)
