It depends on what you mean by 'pretty much Orthodox'. While the 'Great Schism' is generally dated to 1054, it's not like the West was thoroughly Orthodox in 1053 and then suddenly became completely unorthodox the next year. Rather, the formal anathemas and break in communion in 1054 were the culmination of a long process of growing separation between East and West and the gradual growth of unorthodox positions in the West that went unchecked because of that separation.
England was a part of the Western Church and shared in that slow growth away from Orthodoxy. To point to just the two most important issues in the schism, the filioque is attested in England later than Spain and Gaul--but earlier than Rome. And because it was founded by missionaries personally sent out by Pope St. Gregory the Great, the Church of England was always directly under the authority of the bishop of Rome in a way older parts of Western Christendom didn't come to be until later. For the English, Rome literally and unquestionably was 'the Mother Church' without even considering the general Papal claims (and it was English missionaries who converted Germany with the same understanding).
On the other hand, situated at the edge of the world, England was generally more conservative (in the Orthodox sense) than Gaul or Italy. The relationship with Rome was strained in the 11th century to the point that the Pope blessed the Norman invasion of England, and in its wake replaced (or condoned the replacement) of most of the native hierarchy with Gallican clergy who brought the latest in innovative Western thought to the country (the 'father of Scholasticism' was the second Norman Archbishop of Canterbury). There is no evidence that had the invasion not occurred (or failed) that the native English bishops would have broken with their Mother Church to side with the distant East, but given the circumstances we'll never actually know.
-witega (whose patron is St. Caedmon, the first Christian poet of the English language)
