Yes, the Battle of Hastings in 1066 was between the Normans and the English. But the Normans were helped by the invasion at Stamford Bridge by the king of Norway, Harald Hardrada. So the English were all beat up by the time they reached Hastings.
To be fair, lets see you wait an entire summer in one place waiting for an invasion, walk hundreds of miles to fight a completely DIFFERENT invasion and then walk the same distance back to fight the invasion you were originally waiting for.
The Normans basically fought a beaten and bloodied guy and then, when they won, set up a 1000 year monarchy based upon it.
Don't know why people are defending Harold and vilifying William though, not even myself for that matter. The entirety of British accomplishment that the country has ever seen only happened because of this French "invader." Hell, i'd even argue the term "British" only referes to post invasion. Before that it was a completely different society.
That was the Normans not the French. William the conqueror attacked France once he defeated the Anglo Saxons and was eventually killed during the siege of the french city Nantes when he fell off his horse and the wound became infected / was not treated properly.
Dominique de Villepin[edit]
When the UN Security Council discussed Iraq on February 14, 2003, the French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin ended his speech with the words: "This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. (…) Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world."
The next diplomat to speak, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, remarked: "Mr. President, I speak on behalf of a very old country, founded in 1066 by the French."[13]**