Numbers of French Immigrants From 1066 And On

I'll go along with that. I also could make a case that it is not accurate to call the Normans French as early as 1066, but that would really confuse a sadly ignorant student. That peninsula, having been invaded by Norse and Danes, some from Norway and Denmark, others from Ireland, Scotland and Northumbria, only became a Duchy as a result of a treaty between Rollo and Charles of West Francia (even France wasn't France then) in 911--just over a century and a half earlier. Certainly there were intermarriages, and certainly the Normans spoke French, but that didn't make them French. William's enterprise was one of those typical medieval corporate ventures in which he offered land to anyone who would provide men at arms and follow his banner. He had, of course, his Norman feudatories, those who would follow him, which was probably about half of the then existent baronage. He also had French venturers, as well as Flemings and people we would call Germans.

The oversimplified assumptions of the opening post are really rather sad.

A good point which eludes the author of this thread. I dissent, however, from your claim that the island was called "Great" Britain. Sources from the 11th century and earlier with which i am familiar would have called the island Britain, but not Great Britain. Even the Romans, who had conquered the entire island, just called it Britannia.

Oh, and by the way, Joe is absolutely correct that there will be no reliable source for population in general in that island in the 14th century, never mind breaking it down by "Briton" and "French." Edward III began the Hundred Years War in the 14th century. He was careful to refer to his kingdom as England, and his soldiers as Englishmen. It was a calculated propaganda move to reassure the commoners in his army, most of whom were the invaluable archers, that they were all one and that they were all engaged in a venture to benefit them all. Beginning with Edward III, English armies in France displayed the green dragon banner of Wessex as a part of that propaganda campaign. Less than 70 years later, Henry V not only made the same effort, but he even addressed his soldiers on more than one occasion as "fellows," meaning he was one of them. I believe i am correct in stating that Henry V displayed the green dragon banner, too.

It is important to recall that "Great" in this context has a geographical/comparative significance and is not a boast. Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) refers to the island of Great Britain as Britannia major ("Greater Britain"), to distinguish it from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain"), the continental region which approximates to modern Brittany. The term Great Britain was first used officially in 1474, in the instrument drawing up the proposal for a marriage between Cecily the daughter of Edward IV of England, and James the son of James III of Scotland, which described it as "this Nobill Isle, callit Gret Britanee."

I never claimed that the island was called Great Britain, only that it is called Great Britain today. I suppose if the OP had submitted his/her question in the thirteenth century, that might make a difference.

I can give an earlier date: in a Vita Cadoci written shortly before 1086 by Lifris of Llancarfan, Brittany is mentioned "provinciam quondam Armorica, deinde Littau, nunc Brittania minor vocatur" (Source: footnote 22 here). Which implies that a Britannia major has been there, too.

To further amplify the comparative sense in which "Great" is used, there are plenty of village pairs in England with names like Great Gransden and Little Gransden.

The question is about the 13th and 14th centuries, and so it matters.

My only interest in the matter of Britain versus Great Britain is whether or not it is appropriate to refer to the Dano-Anglo-Saxon population of the island as Britons. I don't think it is.

Let me clear up why i'm on about "Great Britain . . .



. . . to dispose of the snotty side seipe first, i understood that, too--but it doesn't alter that OP is abysmally ignorant of the ethnic make-up of the islands in 1066.

There are two divisions of Celts in those islands: the Brythonic Celts, comprised of the Welsh and Cornish (and the Bretons, who were more or less refugees from the islands); and the Goidelic Celts, comprised of the Irish, the Scots and the Manx. Even that doesn't cover it well. The Scots are called Scots because of the Irish colony of the Dalriada, whose inhabitanrs the Romans referred to as Scoti (at least as early as the 4th century). But at the time the Romans overran the island, the north of the island was also inhabited by Albans (largely in the western islands of Scotland) and Picts. The Picts likely came from Armorica, having been driven out by the Romans in the period of the Roman conquest of Gaul. I find it an unreasonable stretch to refer to the Welsh, the Cornish, the Manx, the Scots, the Picts and the Albans as Britons, as though it were some omnibus term for Celts--it is not.

As Joe has pointed out, William conquered England, not Britain.