True enough, though it likely depended on whether you were an Anglo-Dane from Northumbria, East Anglia or Mercia prior to 1066.  The latter folk were probably much more "blended" with their Anglo-Saxon neighbors than someone north of the Humber. 


--- On Wed, 5/6/09, llama_nom <600cell@...> wrote:
From: llama_nom <600cell@...>
Subject: [norse_course] Re: Did the Norse ever refer specifically to the Anglo-Danes?
To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009, 12:20 AM

--- In norse_course@ yahoogroups. com, Michael <oydman@...> wrote:
>
> To a large extent I suppose it could be inferred by the person's name -- not many Saxons were named Thorfinnr or Grimr!

I suppose that all depends on what period you're talking about, and which region. There's a legal document from the 11th century, from Hereford cathedral, in which one Þurcill hwíta is named as one of the parties in a family dispute (see Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Reader XII.B), but I don't know his background. The last English king was called Harold, he had a brother Sweyn; they were English on their father's side, Scandinavian on their mother's side. The Aldbrough sundial inscription has Danish names and is written in a form of Old Danish with English influences [ http://www.ling. upenn.edu/ ~kroch/scand/ aldbrough. html ]. You might have some people with Scandinavian names who spoke English but were well aware of their Danish ancestry, and others more remotely related to Danes who had Scandinavian names, or even people with names that had become so widespread in England that no one realised they were any different from native English names. The languages were similar on many points, and there was no science of etymology to pick apart the sound-changes. I'm sure there are readers of this list who know more on this subject than me though.