Quote Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Is that a consensus view among historians? Maybe I am too influenced by a Whig perception of history, but I find it hard to buy the notion of a country regressing 400 years. I wonder what the figures on population and, say, adult stature suggest about living standards before and after 1066?

Politically, it could be argued that the Normans made England. Before the invasion, it seems to have been a relatively young kingdom that was weak both with regard to internal division and external threats. Afterwards, it seems to have maintained its integrity - avoiding further conquest or partition due to internal upheaval.
Its my view. as to health, that definately declined after the conquest but it had to do with overpopulation. Medieval technology would only alow England to support around a million people, apparently. As Justiciar said the big thing was the seperation of conquered and conquerer. As to social regression, well before 1066 Ceorls (Free men) had some rights and could even become Thegns but after the invasion they were all lcoked in as serfs. Not to mention the king was elected, even if it was only by a select few.

William had a promise from Ed the Confessor but it didn't mean didly squat because the king didn't chose his successor. Any hint of democracy on any level pretty much went out with the Normans and didn't really come back in until the 1300s, I call that a regression.