this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
766 points (98.9% liked)
Greentext
4428 readers
1001 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Meh, this is largely a debate over semantics since the mere notion of a "French people" wouldn't have made sense at the time. "Frenchness" isn't an ethnicity, it's a mix of many different peoples that mixed and intertwined over the years (celts, romans, germanic tribes, immigrants from all over Europe...) and that eventually were all brought together as subjects of the french kingdom.
Normans weren't "french" in the modern sense of the word, but then again very few people in what would later become modern France would have at that time : they all would have considered themselves "Provençal", or "Breton", or "Lorrain" who just happened to live in a Duchy that swore fealty to the king of France.
All things considered, William the Conqueror was a lord of the french kingdom, swore fealty to the king of France and spoke French, so he was no less (but no more, granted) French than any other of his peers. Whether you want to call him french is up to you but is largely an anachronism