1066: England Gets a New King and a New Language

I am not always a believer in memorizing dates. Does a person really need to know in what exact year William Shakespeare was born? Surely not, but it's best to have a general idea anyway. Still, despite the overwhelming evidence that suggests we who study history don't always need to know EXACTLY when certain events occurred, some years are undeniably important to know and commit to memory. 1776 is such a year in American history. 1939 is a good year to know in the history of Hollywood. And when it comes to the development of the English language, one year should always come to mind. That's right! It's 1066!

So what happened in 1066? Why was it such an important year in the history of our language? Let me tell you the story.

Once there was an Anglo-Saxon king living in present-day England whose name was Edward the Confessor. Edward died without an apparent heir to the throne, and as subsequent legends have claimed (we don't know the facts for certain), he named his brother-in-law Harold, Earl of Wessex, to be king after him. The news of Harold's ascension apparently disturbed a young nobleman living across the Channel in the French region of Normandy, one William the Bastard. Not one to let his unfortunate nickname get the better of him, William (aka "The Bastard") believed himself to be the rightful successor to the English throne although, according to some historians, his claim was rather dubious and more than a little disputable. Well, William challenged the claim nevertheless, gathered a substantial force of his kinsmen to sail with him to England, and prepared to royally thrash Harold and his Anglo-Saxon buddies.

In my opinion, Harold was not a wise man. Instead of waiting safely within the confines of London, he and his men rode down to meet the invading army of Normans at the seaside village of Hastings. If that is not proof enough that Harold didn't really think this through properly, then consider this perplexity. Instead of charging into battle on warhorses, Harold and men strode into battle on foot. Meanwhile, the Normans had successfully bred a warhorse, the destrier, that was compact and powerful enough to carry large men in armor and serve as a formidable cavalry. In short, The Bastard and his horse-warriors trampled the sore-footed Anglo-Saxons, and Harold died either from an arrow in the eye or not (we can't be sure).


So what does all this have to do with language? Well, if you haven't already figured this out, let me explain. William and all his buddies were French. This means they spoke French, right? As the ruling army, they then set themselves up as the aristocracy, proclaiming themselves earls, dukes, and in William's case, king. So as the new aristocracy, England's courtly language became French. Meanwhile, the poor peasant folk still spoke English, a very Germanic language compared to today's English. Essentially, this meant there were at least three languages being spoken in England at this time: English, French, and Latin, which was the language of the church. Over the years, this blending of languages would also mean the inclusion of new vocabulary words into English.

For instance, have you ever wondered why English has so many different words for one subject? Why is it that we refer to a large bovine creature in a field as a "cow" and yet when we serve it for dinner it becomes "beef"? Why does a "chicken" become "poultry"? How does "deer" turn into "venison"? The short (and less complicated) answer to this is that the peasants who raised the animals spoke English and therefore referred to the animals by their English names: cows, chickens, etc. The aristocrats who ate the meals after they were prepared referred to the animals by their French names: bouef (beef), poulet (poultry), etc.

Throughout history, the languages became to merge. English took some of the characteristics of the French language. According to J.R.R. Tolkien, creator of the Lord of the Rings, the Battle of Hastings was probably the greatest tragedy in the development of our language because it essentially meant the end of "uncorrupted" English. In other words, we no longer feel familiar with the language of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors because our subsequent language has been "frenchified" (not to be mistaken for "French-fried" language). As Tolkien explains, the Battle of Hastings brought an end to true English culture and obliterated any form of native mythology England may have possessed at one point. Tolkien makes a good argument. Very few literary scraps exist from the time of the Anglo-Saxons, the most significant of these being the epic poem Beowulf. Still, for anyone who has ever read Beowulf, you know that the poem has been significantly altered over time, giving it a decidedly Christian tone and morality to it that the original epic probably did not contain. Whatever the true nature of Anglo-Saxon mythology would have been, we can only guess.

Interestingly, things may have worked out for the best. Tolkien was apparently so upset about the loss of Anglo-Saxon culture that he set out to recreate it in the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. Indeed, the story of the Dragon Smaug is probably directly inspired by Beowulf's battle with a similar dragon. From what I read on "One Wiki to Rule Them All", an online Tolkien encyclopedia, it seems that Tolkien believed that his "fictional" world Middle-Earth (based on the Old English word "middangeard") was actually the present world as it existed about six thousand years ago. If this is true, it would, of course, set the events of his stories well before the time of the Anglo-Saxons, and yet the cultures Tolkien writes about in his books may have served as ancient precursors for the Angles, Saxons, and other Germanic tribes. In effect, Tolkien may have been theorizing about the beginnings of Anglo-Saxon culture and its mythology. (We'll speak more about this later!)

Aside from the obvious influence the Battle of Hastings had on Tolkien personally, 1066 was a significant year for other reasons. William, who became known as "The Conqueror" rather than "The Bastard" for the sake of better public relations, implemented the first really organized Feudal government of England and effectively unified it under one crown and one flag. Before this, England was largely a collective of little, independent kingdoms. After being the first British king to be coroneted at Westmister Abbey (where all later British monarchs have been crowned), William set the course of history that would eventually lead to the foundation of the British Empire, the American nation, the English language, and much of the modern world as we know it. Speaking specifically about language development once again, without the Norman invasion, English today wouldn't sound like the English we know. It would never have developed the way that it did. Our literature would look completely different. Chaucer would have written differently, as would Shakespeare. We might sound more German and less French.

1066 was also the last year England was successfully invaded by an outside force. Even the Nazis couldn't do what William did, which says a lot for him . . . even if he was a bastard.