As someone who’s actually studied Old English and Old Norse: No, you are incorrect. it was the French. It’s always been the French. 1066.
Old English was a perfectly coherent language, and had incredibly consistent spelling rules. Meanwhile, one need only take a single look at a sentence in French to gauge precisely how much respect for spelling is held by francophones (being facetious with this last note, of course, but the point stands)
The term “Viking” has a very specific meaning. Would the people of Normandy, including the flemish, French and Breton troops, have called it a Viking activity when they went to England? Would William the conqueror? No. Obviously not. If a random person whose great grandmother was Scandinavian went to another country with a bunch of american CIA agents and toppled the government, would you say that THEY were “vikings”? No, of course not (and if you would you’re daft). Was Grace O’Malley a Viking, just because many of the Irish people around the coasts were descended from Norsemen? The word “Viking” specifically describes those Norse peoples actively foraying for trade and raid, and does not describe even those whom they left at home. This is not some opportunistic sea piracy, or even settlement. This was a conquest. A replacement of the nobility for the purpose of establishing dominion. Completely unrelated to Viking activity, so pretending like your terminology was somehow accurate on the technicality that many people who fought in England were, from their distant antecedents, descended from scandinavian people, is ridiculous. It was, at best, misleading, and at worst, disingenuous.
No, you should blame the Vikings. They’re the ones that did all the blending
As someone who’s actually studied Old English and Old Norse: No, you are incorrect. it was the French. It’s always been the French. 1066.
Old English was a perfectly coherent language, and had incredibly consistent spelling rules. Meanwhile, one need only take a single look at a sentence in French to gauge precisely how much respect for spelling is held by francophones (being facetious with this last note, of course, but the point stands)
You missed my point completely. Which French were the ones who invaded in 1066? Who were they descended from?
The term “Viking” has a very specific meaning. Would the people of Normandy, including the flemish, French and Breton troops, have called it a Viking activity when they went to England? Would William the conqueror? No. Obviously not. If a random person whose great grandmother was Scandinavian went to another country with a bunch of american CIA agents and toppled the government, would you say that THEY were “vikings”? No, of course not (and if you would you’re daft). Was Grace O’Malley a Viking, just because many of the Irish people around the coasts were descended from Norsemen? The word “Viking” specifically describes those Norse peoples actively foraying for trade and raid, and does not describe even those whom they left at home. This is not some opportunistic sea piracy, or even settlement. This was a conquest. A replacement of the nobility for the purpose of establishing dominion. Completely unrelated to Viking activity, so pretending like your terminology was somehow accurate on the technicality that many people who fought in England were, from their distant antecedents, descended from scandinavian people, is ridiculous. It was, at best, misleading, and at worst, disingenuous.