Also the movie « The King” is 95% inaccurate

The original video by that english youtuber is bad from the get go, so can't do anything about that.

Queen Elizabeth II had a very good French

I guess one of the reasons to drop Norman-French would be that as time passed it was diverging further from Parisian French [ ancestor of modern French ] so that they became less mutually intelligible. Perhaps Norman French also started to sound like a rural peasant dialect to French nobles and they mocked the Norman=French of the English nobles.

@@neilbuckley1613 modern French in it’s most pure form I believe would come from the Loire Valley

@@neilbuckley1613 It depended on when, Norman French wasn't the only native language of the English kings, there were also other dialects like Occitan for example (probably the first language of Richard the Lionheart), well actually Occitan may be considered another language entirely, in southern France. It's the court/administrative language that didn't change until English took over, it remained Parisian French (unless I read something wrong) until the 100 Years War messed things up. Normans from Normandy continued to speak a fairly intelligible variety of French, if anything it became closer to standard french. It probably wasn't the dialect spoke by the english kings in the late medieval period though, as said above the Plantagenets kings had different dialects as their native language. That dynasty wasn't especially Norman, they came from Anjou, a little south of Normandy.

English "cat" has proto-germanic roots, and it is pronounced with a k-sound in other Germanic languages as well. It is "katt" here in Sweden, "katze" in German, etc.

Not really accurate. Many langues d'Oïl shared that trait.

you're Geordie, right, so not English speaking.

@@stirlingmoss4621 ouch 🤣🤣

King Henry IV (Henry of Bolingbroke) was the eldest son of John of Gaunt (1st Duke of Lancaster), who was the 3rd son of Edward III. Henry was a 1st cousin to King Richard II and, like his cousin, they were both grandsons of Edward III. They had the same amount of "royal blood" as each other.

THIS. It is just that many anglos on the internet are monolingual and have nothing to compare with, and they probably like the feeling of English somehow being "special".

Yes^^ People forget French actually replaced latin, and their population was massive, and they were powerful. Their population alone was higher than whole Europe put together till the XIXth century. It is said that between 41% and 60% of english words come directly from Old French and middle, modern French.

Not technically true. The first King of England after the house of Plantagenet was Henry VII who was born in Wales

As far as I know, only one king spoke German, and it was just as an individual it wasn't the whole court or anything. It's a bit different imho.

The first generation viking settlers were pretty assimilated so the children or grandchildren of the first settlers

Very fast. Apparently, they were they best immigrants in the world. They even started to take a little pride at how civilized they were, far from the raiders of the past. One or two generations was enough. Probably, the fact that the locals in Normandy ounumbered the immigrants anyway, helped a lot.

They lost it in less than 2 generations. They became romans (French :D) just like the Franks did very early on. Their mothers were French as well, french population was huge.

Um..as a speaker of Melanesian Pidgin, I'm afraid that the idea of Charles being 'fluent' in Pidgin is not quite right. His speech-writers included Pidgin in his speeches...but he wasn't able to speak it IRL. No pidgin speakers include R.P. into their language!!

@@cireenasimcox1081 oh! So it looks like fake inclusivity will be a big feature of the next reign.

Should be: sheep= germanic, mouton= french ...etc etc...

Paris has always been the standard in all things French (but don't ask S France).

@@williambranch4283 I'm not sure what you mean. I'm referring to King Edward I of England. He was a Norman so the language of his court would've been Anglo Norman French. Sure, the French Princess would've probably spoken Parisian French but it was probably intelligible to Norman French speakers.

@@ayeready6050 But being French Parisian, she would have been disgusted by such an argot ;-)

Because the movie is about the american revolutionary war, not the rebellion of William Wallace

@@marcushertz4434 assuming you're referring to History Buff's review on it?

Until 1453, the French king was a Norman joke ;-) Same year Constantinople became Istanbul.

Not "vastly", Norman french was one of the dialects closest to Parisian French. The dialects from the Oil continuum (the northern half of France, roughly) were rather close to each other, mostly intelligible. It's the southern dialects that were vastly different: Occitan could be considered another language entirely, with varied regional dialects in the south, in a fashion similar to the Oil language in northern France. Provencal was also a different language. And then there were the languages that didn't have anything to do with standard French, like Breton in Britanny.

@@xenotypos ​ @xenotypos Well, mate, you had me scratching my head over the "oil continuum" - my thoughts went straight to BP and Shell etc!😆The penny dropped when I realised you were referring to the "Langues d'oil" which did indeed form a continuum which stretched to Belgian and the Channel Islands. So, yeah, maybe the "vastly" might have been a little OTT. But most students will have studied early French poetry - written in beautiful Court-French. They think reading Norman French is going to be a doddle - then find they are dealing with a very different tongue....in comparison. My main point was to try to present the reality behind the common misunderstanding that *the English* spoke French. Rather: :- what comes down to us from the time may be some documents written in French. But keep in mind that all the other documents will have been written in Latin. Yet no-one suggests that *the English* all spoke Latin, do they? English was not considered an official language then, so it was able to expand and in fact at the time of the Norman Kings the English language thrived . (It's always amused me that many Norman ladies gave strict instructions not to teach the children in English. Then hired English nurses and nanny's and kitchen staff who spoke nothing but English. They grew up bi-lingual though: but kept from their parents the news that their ears had been sullied with that uncouth, rude tongue all their lives!🤣🤣)

I can read Norman French just like I can read Old french. These are dialects of Langues d'Oïl, they're intelligible. Do you read or speak French? You can try. I don't agree with Langues d'Oc not being French languages.

@@xenotypos Les langues d'Oc sont de l'ancien français. La séparation réelle de ces deux dialects français arrivent très tard, vers le XVIIIe siècle.

The music is in the original video. Not Connor's fault.

It's acually partly germanic and celtic. The Franks were a germanic tribe.

@@herrbonk3635 The french language is only barely germanic at all, but yhea its base is latin and celtic.

I don't think many Latin words would've remained from the Roman occupation. Most of the Latin and Greek words we have in English were introduced during the Enlightenment because of progress in scientific studies resulted in the need to create new words for new inventions and concepts.

@@ayeready6050 Yes, that´s also true, especifically for science related words. But there are also many "common" English words that come from Latin and that are not forcibly related to the French language and that suggest a previous Roman/Latin connection. Also, dont forget that Roman occupation of England lasted for around 400 years and that´s more than enough for a language to, at least partially, impose itself. Just in this my paragraph above, the words "especifically", "science", "related", "common", "forcibly", "language", "suggest", "previous", "connection", "occupation", "partially" and "impose" are all from Latin origin (and the words "paragraph" and "origin" also, btw).

You do realise that the Romans invaded Britain, a country of Celts speaking a language that was ancestor of Welsh. England only came about post Roman occupation with the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons who took little linguistic influence from the inhabitants.

@@neilbuckley1613 I´m aware of that. Naming it England because we are talking talking about the English language. Also, something I forgot to mention in my previous post; Latin was also the Christian Church and Christian priests official language, and was also the diplomatic and erudit language among all western Christian kingdoms, so, all Christian kings and nobles have to knew their Latin during all the middle ages. The pagan rulers, like the Anglo-Saxons kings and nobles that invaded Britannia after the Romans, they all eventually also got to coexist with Latin once they converted to Christianism.

It is really doesn't. Nothing was preserved from latin, besides a few church words. The main source of latin in the english language is French by 41% ot 60% of words of total english words being french (Old, middle and modern french words). This is a common myth I've seen a lot of times. Just go find a text from Old English, and then Middle english. Now compare them to Old French and Middle French.