Numbers of French Immigrants From 1066 And On

Forums: History, European History, 1066, Census Data, Spelling Critique
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Estimates I can see vary widely but put the population of Britain in 1066 as approx:-

2,000,000 Pre-Conquest Britains
10,000 Norman/French

It is widely stated that in the ensuing 200 years the outnumbered, but heavily armed, Norman-French, imported farmers, stonemasons, priests and their servants, craftsmen, cooks, as well as rank and file troops to man newly built castles and that these immigrants enjoyed far greater priveleges and opportunities than the virtually enslaved Britons.

My question is what would the split in population have been by say 1300?, i.e., how many people of Pre-Conquest British descent would there have been as opposed to people of Norman/French origin in 1300?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 3,986 • Replies: 29

@RufusTheDog,

i only know two British folk named Norman, former Housemartin and now DJ Fatboy Slim, Norman Cook

and this fellow Norman Clegg

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsS/tve15264-19860104-190.jpg

not to be confused with Corporal Clegg, who i'm led to believe had a wooden leg, i'm told he won it in the war, in 1944

possibly in France

0 Replies

You have some strange ideas of the population of that island in 1066. There were Britons, certainly--but they were in the west--Cornwall and Wales. The majority of the population of the island at that time were Dano-Anglo-Sacons. They were descended from the Danes, Angeln, Saxons and Jutes who had been first raiding and then settling the island since the fourth century.

While those Normans who followed in the wake of the conquest would likely have had a higher social status than the Anglo-Saxon who had become serfs, that's hardly to be wondered at. Why would someone import serfs when there was such a population in the island, and the serfs in Normany served a useful purpose there, from which one would be ill-advised to remove them?

I suggest that you need to do a good deal more careful study of the history, culture and ethnicity of the island both before and after the Norman invasion. You also need to more thoroughly understand European society in the middle ages.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

By Pre-Conquest Britains I did mean all that lived in Britain Pre-1066. If anyone can offer constructive info re population growth it would be much appreciated.

0 Replies

If you can't tell the Anglo-Saxons from the Britons, i don't see that it would be worth anyone's while to do your research for you.

1 Reply

William the Bastard of Normandy, soon to be known as William the Conqueror, did not overrun Cornwall, nor did he attempt to overrun Wales. So, in fact, there wre no Britons in the lands conquered by the Normans either then, nor even 200 years later. Wales was not overrun by the Anglo-Norman monarchy until the late 13th century, by Edward--who was the great, great, great, great grandson of William. So talking about Britain (a concept which did not exist then) is meaningless, and talking about the population of Britons is a meaningless concept.

You mention "farmers" coming over from Normandy. Farmers? What do you mean by that? Serfs? Villeins, who both owed labor service as well has having some freehold land of their own? Franklins--i.e., freemen who had risen from serf status by acquiring freehold land and then buying out their labor service obligation?

Population of Britons in the kingdom 200 years after the conquest? Negligible to zero.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

the Britons

He even calls them the "Britains"... he might as well write "I am a lazy 13 year old; please do my homework for me."

1 Reply

0 Replies

@RufusTheDog,

Folks can get burs under their saddles pretty quick around here. "Britons" can refer to persons who live in Great Britain or it can refer to the Celtic peoples of the British Isles (a.k.a. Brythons). From the context, it's clear you meant the first definition. Be assured that some of us actually understood that.

As for your question, though, I don't know if anyone can answer. Statistics for that era are, of course, unavailable. Furthermore, there was a good deal of intermingling between the pre-conquest Anglo-Saxons and the Normans, so that, by the fourteenth century, we're really dealing with an Anglo-Norman population. And even if the Anglo-Saxons didn't have Norman blood, they were becoming culturally Anglo-Norman. The notion that there was a sharp delineation between the ruling Normans and the subjugated Saxons is the stuff of literature -- Robin Hood and Ivanhoe especially. The historical record is rather more nuanced.

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

"Britons" can refer to persons who live in Great Britain

That meaning of 'Briton' had no validity (and no existence!) prior to the establishment of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Northern Ireland after 1922) following the union between England and Wales, and Scotland. This took place on 1 May 1707.

1 Reply

@contrex,

Quite incorrect. Great Britain is an island that comprises England, Wales, and Scotland. It existed long before 1707 (the last land link to the continent was submerged about 8,000 years ago). Any native living on the island of Great Britain was and is a Briton.

Furthermore, the 1707 Act of Union created the kingdom of Great Britain, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. That happened with the Act of Union of 1800 (effective Jan. 1, 1801).

I shouldn't have to be telling you this. Don't they teach this stuff in British schools?

0 Replies

There is no official definition of the informal term "Briton". Dictionaries differ. Your definition of "Briton" is a controversial one. For example see how it is used by Chris Gibbs:

Quote:

The New Britons: Scottish Identity in the 18th and 19th Centuries

By Chris Gibbs

King James VI of Scotland ascended the throne of England in 1603 as James I, ‘King of Great Britain’. For the first time the fiery and independent Scotland was united with its southern neighbour via the monarchy, yet they remained independent kingdoms with their own parliaments, legal and religious systems. In 1707 the Union of Scotland and England occurred. Through the terms of the Act of Union the Scottish parliament was abolished and England and Scotland were joined as the one kingdom of Great Britain, yet as before Scotland retained its religious and legal independence. The last Jacobite uprising occurred in 1745 and with the defeat of Bonnie Prince Charlie an end was put to the movement to try to return the Stuarts – the one time kings of Scotland – to the throne. Almost all Scots were now firmly under the Hanoverian banner and they gradually became active citizens of Great Britain. This essay will study the Scottish identity in the 18th and 19th Centuries, including their culture, traditions, interpretation of history, role in society, relations with the monarchy and their taking up of a British identity alongside the Scottish one

2 Replies

@contrex,

At least some in the 11th/12th century called the inhabitants of that island just and only "English".
On the Bayeux tapestry, for instance: HIC NAVIS ANGLICA VENIT IN TERRAM WILLELMI DUCIS (scene 34) or HIC WILLELM[US] DUX ALLOQUITUR SUIS MILITIBUS UT PREPAREN[T] SE VIRILITER ET SAPIENTER AD PR[O]ELIUM CONTRA ANGLORUM EXERCITU[M] (scene 51).

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

" Be assured that some of us actually understood that."

Only one it would seem! This forum should have a motto:-

"Common sense little, Trolls many"

"As for your question, though, I don't know if anyone can answer. Statistics for that era are, of course, unavailable."

Academics must have come up with some projections though surely?

2 Replies

@contrex,

The Scots are Britons, and they were Britons even before 1707. They may not like it, but they are.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

That's technically correct, since Harold was king of England, not of Great Britain, and William conquered England only.

1 Reply

@RufusTheDog,

RufusTheDog wrote:

Academics must have come up with some projections though surely?

None that I'm aware of, but I'm certainly not au fait with the academic literature in this area.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

The Scots are Britons, and they were Britons even before 1707. They may not like it, but they are.

Is that what they teach you in school in Chicago? Anyhow, the word, which is used mainly in newspapers has no official definition. It is used in Britain almost if not completely exclusively in a political (citizenship) sense, rather than the geographical sense to which you allude. A French person living in the UK is not a "Briton".

1 Reply

@RufusTheDog,

Quote:

"Common sense little, Trolls many"

Unfortunately, you're pretty close to the mark.

I'm enjoying this thread though, that you started. All sorts of facts and opinions about a historical period that I don't know much about.

Welcome to A2K.

0 Replies

@contrex,

Of course that's the current usage, since the political entity and the geographical entity are coterminous. Someone in Great Britain is hence a Briton (a citizen of Great Britain) and a Briton (a resident of the island of Great Britain). There's not much need to distinguish those terms now, but in talking about events prior to 1707 the distinction remains useful.

0 Replies

Numbers of French Immigrants From 1066 And On

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know