The Normans turned the country upside down by introducing the feudal system into England and changing political, legal and religious language, but eventually came to see themselves as English. The English masses did not become Norman. The identity and the language we have today still originates with the Anglo-Saxons. That is why we call it "English", not "Norman", "Breton" or "Roman". That England became more outward-looking and imperialistic under Norman overlordship does not mean that the Anglo-Saxons were not English. They were just more obviously Germanic. In fact, one could argue that it is we who are not the real English today. What is "English"? Isn't it just a feeling of belonging to that land between the Channel and Scotland?

The novel is very entertaining. Many details have already been mentioned by different reviewers, but what does it for me is Rathbone's evocation of the English desire for independence, a defiance of European meddling in a sovereign land, something to be found in today's "English". Rathbone demonstrates what a disaster Edward the Confessor was for his country (was he really "English"?) and Harold Godwinson's desperate and ultimately vain attempts to prevent the Normans from taking England. I was pleased that he cuts through some of the Norman propaganda and refutes the idea that the Normans won because they fought on horseback. I had not known that the other two Godwinson brothers, Gyrth and Leofwine, had pleaded with Harold to stay away from the battle and let them direct it - if only he had.

With Harold died Anglo-Saxon hegemony over England - however it died not forlornly with an arrow in the eye, but defiantly and furiously, sword in hand. It is fitting that Rathbone stresses the Englishness of Harold's Anglo-Saxons - any people who feel they belong to England are English, be it 1066 or 2005.