Henry II wasnt the start of England holding lands in France. William the Conqueror took England and still held lands in France. Then like i said people like Henry gained lands in France through inheritance and marriage. Henry was the son of Empress Matilda who the King of england named as the successor to the Kingdom of England. Yes he was the son of the Count of Anjou, but more importantly he was the heir of the 'rightful' Queen of England and later on was named the true heir of the King of England. Even Henry himself only became Duke of Aquitaine because he married Eleanor of Aquitaine. Aquitaine then became a key part of the Angevin Empire. So my point stands.

They accepted the King of France as their King but they werent french, they were Norman. India was a part of the british empire but India was never considered british. There's a reason we call them normans and not just french. They were significantly different people, even though they spoke french and saw the King of France as their king.

I'm not sure what you're gettting at with the English kings being descended from viings. The english kings were claiming to be the successors to the kingdom founded in england by Norsemen/saxons, not the successors to the Norsemen who ruled over a kingdom in scandinavia.

Your original point was that England was 'a french duchy since Guillaume le Conquérant' and therefore the Angevin Empire wasnt english but french. My counter argument was that England was still england once he took it. That invasion in 1066 was the beginning of this period where english kings held lands in france.

French lands (Normandy) remained under english control after William's death and it was from there that the English rulers began to gain more land from marriage and inheritance. This began with the heir to the Kingdom of England (Empress Matilda) marrying Geoffrey of Anjou and her son (Henry II) inheriting England along with Geoffrey's titles. Henry II then married Eleanor which added Aquitaine to the empire.