Eh, as stigweard said the Normans were not French they were descendents of Norsemen who a French King paid off to stop them from repeatedly sacking Rouen with a sizeable chunk of his kingdom, which then naturally enough became known as Normandy. That was one of the reasons that William's invasion was linked to a Norse Viking invasion attempt led by the then King of Norway Harald Hardrada. The English King Harold defeating Hardrada at Stamford Bridge.

No armies of occupation Little Hawk, as at the time there were no standing armies, so it was impossible to occupy another country (That only ever came into the picture when the French introduced the "Levee-en-masse" during the Napoleonic War). You must be confusing actual historical reality with "war-gaming". Another reason why your claims regarding "British conquests" are rather ridiculous, even at the height of the British Empire, Britains Army numbered around 120,000 men. Do you honestly expect to sell anyone on the likelyhood that an army of only 120,000 men conquered roughly three quarters of this planet? The sub-continent of India (Population around 350 million) was administered by a Civil Service of under 1000 people. I shudder to think of the size of Army that would have been required to "conquer" India - Alexander the Great tried and failed, the descendents of Ghengis Khan the Moguls only partly succeeded. Britain on the other hand never even attempted it.

Oh and your poor and incorrectly identified example of Britain going forth aggressively to establish an Empire, i.e. The 100 Years War, would of course have been an English endeavour, wouldn't it? Great Britain did not come into existence until 1707.