Why was language not used to establish dominance throughout England 1066 AD–1360s CE?

Question

Why didn’t the Normans enforce the use of their native tongue throughout the whole of England after William the Conqueror (of Normandy) became king of England? During William’s reign as king he discouraged the use of Old English in his court, and promoted the use of the French (Norman) language amongst his vassals as the feudal system was implemented. Also, it seems that Old English writing was essentially non-existent for nearly 300 years after 1066 CE and was replaced by “French” writing (Latin was still being used). However, was the spoken language of Old English still permitted throughout this time period? Was there no political ambition to remove the language from general use? If not, why not?

Note: It seems that Alfred the Great (King of the West Saxons 849 – 899 CE) understood the power of language and thus promoted the writing and speaking of Old English throughout his reign.

Answer 1

There was a separation between the noble french and the vulgar Old English.

Or as I wrote in my comment: Who cares about the language of peasants

I found a nice source for this assumption

Middle English (1100-circa 1500 AD): After William the Conqueror, the Duke of Normandy, invaded and conquered England in 1066 AD with his armies and became king, he brought his nobles, who spoke French, to be the new government. The Old French took over as the language of the court, administration, and culture. Latin was mostly used for written language, especially that of the Church. Meanwhile, The English language, as the of the now lower class, was considered a vulgar tongue.

By about 1200, England and France had split. English changed a lot, because it was mostly being spoken instead of written for about 300 years. The use of Old English came back, but with many French words added. This language is called Middle English. Most of the words embedded in the English vocabulary are words of power, such as crown, castle, court, parliament, army, mansion, gown, beauty, banquet, art, poet, romance, duke, servant, peasant, traitor and governor. ("Language Timeline", The British Library Board)

Very intersting :

Because the English underclass cooked for the Norman upper class, the words for most domestic animals are English (ox, cow, calf, sheep, swine, deer) while the words for the meats derived from them are French (beef, veal, mutton, pork, bacon, venison). ("The Origin and History of the English Language", Kryss Katsiavriades)

Another source notes, that exaclty the period you asked, is the period, where Old English changed to Middle English:

with the Norman Conquest, the English language underwent some dramatic changes. Anglo-Norman, or early Middle English, had direct effects that can still be seen today. Some of our words with an Anglo-Norman origin include chamber, judge, archer, flour, guarantee, parliament, jury, college, and adventure. In addition to new vocabulary words, English grammar underwent changes, too. After the end of the fourteenth century, early Middle English transformed into late Middle English.

Answer 2

The reasons are so numerous and overlapping.

• There would have been very little to gain from establishing dominance of French culture. People did not form sympathies or loyalties based on language or culture – that development had to wait for another 700 years or so.

• It would have been completely impossible to enforce such a ban. There were no such institutions as gendarmes, secret police, or indeed police of any kind. Knights lived in their castles and peasants lived in their cottages. Except for the former extracting wealth from the latter, they had very little to do with each other.

• There was no practical way that any more than a tiny percentage of the population could have been educated to speak French. Who would even have taught them?

• One always has to be careful about projecting modern conditions back on the past. The Norman conquest was not like a modern conquest of one nation by another; better to think of it like a modern "palace coup," where the very top levels of the leadership are replaced, but the basic structure of society remains as before.

• In comments, the asker mentions the Anglo-Saxon invasion, which did lead to the displacement of the Celtic languages – but that was a very different situation. Anglo-Saxons migrated en masse under pressure of overpopulation, carved out new kingdoms from the existing ones, and subjugated the Celts under their rule into a new under-class. The Norman invasion was smaller and much more limited in its effects.

Answer 3

In most of the European middle ages the rulers/aristocracy were completely detached from the peasants.

They were really just like a set of management consultants brought in to run a company. The Normans had no real interest in dominating the English—so long as rents got paid and nobody revolted, who cared what language the peasants spoke.

In many European countries—like the Piast dynasty in Bohemia, or the Grand dukes of Lithuania—they literally put in a bid to run the country.