-3

Is it true that:

  1. For quite a long period Germans ruled England.
  2. They dominated English so much so that the English language was about to lose its prime importance amongst the populace.
    Later on,
  3. An English statesman (I forgot the name) prepared a policy to revive their native language i.e. English.
  4. He (the said Statesman) was successful in his ambition and the English tongue was rejuvenated.
  5. The period for which Brits were ruled by Germans spanned about 400 years.

I read this couple of years back. I fail to recollect accurate details of reference.

Please verify and update me.

closed as too broad by called2voyage, SPavel, Null, knut, Pieter Geerkens Nov 10 '17 at 21:46

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    Welcome to History:SE. Have you tried to research these questions anywhere else (e.g. on Google, for example) ? What has that research shown you so far? You might find it helpful to review the site tour and Help Centre and, in particular, How to Ask. – sempaiscuba Nov 10 '17 at 14:59
  • 4
    By Germans do you mean the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes that migrated to the British Isles? Or the Windsor royal family, descended from Germans (like almost all European monarchies)? – SPavel Nov 10 '17 at 15:16
  • 1
    One could argue that "England" only exists because of the Germanic tribes that gave it the name and the language. "Brits" generally refers to all of the peoples of the British Isles, many of whom are not English (and are very keen not to be seen as such). – Steve Bird Nov 10 '17 at 15:22
  • 1
    Doesn't address everything in your question, but worth a read: history.stackexchange.com/a/32269/2732. That said, I think you have two many questions for one post. – called2voyage Nov 10 '17 at 15:23
  • 2
    Question has an answer, with references and citations. Question appears to be sincere (based on a false premise, but one with underlying ?proto-facts?, and I can't claim I've never been guilty of that). Let's not close the question, let's move the comments to answers. – Mark C. Wallace Nov 10 '17 at 16:21
7

The answer to all of your questions is no.


The name "England" derives from the Old English name Englaland, which means "Land of the Angles". It is worth noting that, in the context of language, Old English is a synonym for Anglo Saxon. (The earliest recorded use of the term that I'm aware of is in the late ninth century translation into Old English of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, which had been written in Latin in in the early eighth century.)

The first "King of England" was Ecgherht (Egbert), who ruled from 827 – 839. His actual Anglo-Saxon title was Bretwalda (“ruler of the British”), rather than King, but it meant broadly the same thing. There was no entity called "England" before that.

Egbert was almost certainly descended from Germanic invaders who arrived in the early post-Roman period, but probably also from native Romano-British peoples. The truth is that we lack the evidence to be at all precise about his ancestry. By this stage, the "English" people were, by-and-large probably a mixture of these peoples. Not German, not Romano-British, but - for want of a better word - "English".

So, the answer to your first question is no. By the time there was an "England", the people who ruled there were no longer "German".


For your second, third and fourth questions, the answer is also no. If you look at the Wikipedia page for the History of English, you will see that the Old English (a.k.a "Anglo Saxon" - see above) of Beowulf, developed into the Middle English of Chaucer, which in turn became the early modern English of Shakespeare, which eventually became modern English (and, via Webster et al., American).

The language was never lost, and so never needed a statesman to champion its cause.


For question 5, see question 1.

  • 5
    Not only was there no entity called England until the 9th century, there was no entity called Germany (as opposed to simply the region of Germania) until 1871. – SPavel Nov 10 '17 at 16:52
1

No.

The only thing I can think of that is even close to this is the Danelaw, where for a period of about 100 years a subset of England was being run by Danish (Norse) peoples, and to which they were immigrating in sizable numbers. Note that both Norse and English are Germanic languages (and neither are "German" in the modern sense)

About 60 years after that, Cnut the Great conquered England, but this time Danish rule only lasted Cnut's lifetime. After his death (and a bit of excitement) the Normans conquered England, and made the country's official language Norman French. The common people never took to that language, and the French looked down on it, so it was quietly dropped in favor of English about 350 years later.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.