The relationship here, and that somewhat distant, is the common Germanic ancestry: the Normans were descendants of vikings (the horde of Rollo, if I remember), Norse cousins of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes (name still reflected in the Jutland penninsula). As to that being the last successful invasion (remember, also, that Harold's army had just made a full march to Hastings after defeating another army of Norse cousins), it's the reason the Nazi's wanted the Bayeaux Tapestry -- a woven depiction of the battle -- in their attempt at another Germanic invasion. Maybe there's a connection here to 'bloody' having been a favorite British byline adjective.
They didn't win all their naval battles in the days of the tall ships, either. During the War of 1812 (by name only) an entire naval squadron surrendered on September 10, 1813, at the Battle of Lake Erie. I know the British frigates Guerriere and Java were lost to the USS Constitution (Old Ironsides) but there is a humorous story (perhaps that only) about the Constitution. It set sail with full compliments of cannon shot, black powder, food, rum and 38,600 gallons of fresh drinking water; it successfully engaged 17 British ships, only salvaging rum. When it arrived back at port, it had no cannon shot, no black powder, no food, no rum but did have 38,600 gallons of stagnant drinking water.

You want it more graphic to prove my point? How bloody British of you...
and my history's not so exhaustive that I could ever list the many battles in which the British engaged.
Zulus? Well, Victoria, the African soil was surely bloody.

I wasn't speaking so much of the bloody usage origin as the bloody spillage...
but thank you for putting me on the hate list...


Aitch
H

The rest were just physical arguments...