The question of Englishness

There is a really stupid article in a really stupid paper.

Only read my rant if you read the previously mentioned article.

Interesting is the fact that no native English speaker unfamiliar with university level English studies can really read or indeed understand Old English.

So how the hell can we claim it is the same language?The grammar differs. The vocabulary differs. The structure differs too.
We might as well claim that Old Celtic language which is indeed the mother of the English language is the same as modern English. Yet it only shares about 10 words with Modern English.

One needs to understand the concept of language as a process of perpetual change. It is not the same. It does not stay the same.

Even more interesting is the fact that Germany as a country did not even exist back then. Or in fact did not exist until two hundred years ago. As it is itself made of different peoples and tribes. It might have been called Germania (the region not the country though) just as there was Britannia but Germany was not unified until 1871! So how can anything happening before then could be suggested to be under influence of Germans?

Honestly why the journalists do not do their homework? I would like the results for the percentage of French, Scandinavian, Latin (that would be diffiult to define), Pict, Celtic and Gaelic DNA. As linguistic evidence is simply insufficient. And never will be.

P.S. This rant was written four days ago, immediately after reading the article. Since then I have been in an emotional, creative and material limbo.