Don't make complete Celts of yourselves
Robert Henderson
Note: I wrote this some years ago. I shall be updating it over the next
few months but its basic premise remains sound, namely, independence for
Scotchland would spell disater for the Scotch children. . RH
Don't make complete Celts of yourselves
Robert Henderson
The extent to which the Scots , the Welsh and Northern Irish
Catholics actively wish to leave the UK is debatable. Their
widespread resentment of England and all things English is
not. In fact, things have come to such a pretty pass that to
be English in any part of the UK other than England is to
risk utterly gratuitous insult which ranges from the naked
and vulgar abuse of the working classes to mean spirited
bourgeois whining. Those who blithely dismiss anti-English
Celtic feeling as being either the product of a small
minority of political activists whose importance is unduly
inflated by media attention or simply sporting chauvinism -
implausible even by the dismal standards of liberal apologia
- are either dullards or wilfully dishonest.
Celtic antipathy might prove to be a transient and
inconsequential matter were it not for Labour's reckless
provision of assemblies for Scotland and Wales and Britain's
membership of the ever growing Leviathan of the Europe Union.
From the specious promise of these political phantasmagoria
grow outlandish Celtic dreams of an independence liberally
financed by foreigners. The time is more than ripe for a few
hard truths to be placed before the would be Celtic
separatists and home rulers.
The hardest and most important truth is that England enjoys
such a preponderance in population, wealth, educational
opportunity, industry and commerce that it inevitably
hugely dominates the other parts of Britain. Those Celts who
imagine that England has exploited their countries in a
peculiarly gratuitous, vicious and avaricious fashion should
look at the general historical (and, indeed, present) fate of
small countries faced with powerful neighbours. That general
fate includes occupation by force, the reduction of
conquered populations to a servile state, wholesale
depredations, chronic legal disadvantages, the refusal of
free trade - even with the occupying power, the absolute
exclusion from government and, at the worst, genocide.
Compare such behaviour with that of England's towards
Scotland, Ireland and Wales for the past century and a half
(at least). During that time all Celts have shared absolute
legal equality with Englishmen, have enjoyed the immense
benefits of free trade with England, had an inside track to
the first industrial revolution, have been able to export
their surplus populations to England, have received greater
parliamentary representation than the English, have
benefited - particularly since 1945 - from preferential
government spending paid for by the English, and, most
important for small peoples, have received the protection of
the British state which would be nothing without England. In
truth, it is a very long time since the English state
behaved with gratuitous harshness or deliberate unfairness to
even Ireland, despite the fact that Irish Fenians remain to
this day a source of provocation which would bring condign
punishment in most parts of the world as it is now and which
would have guaranteed such punishment everywhere at any time
in history prior to the nineteenth century. If Celts had an
ounce of intellectual and emotional honesty they would
stand amazed at England's moderation, not shout their
unreasoning hatred or bleat imagined wrongs.
The next unpalatable truth is that there is no guarantee
that Britain or, in the event of a break-up of the UK,
England, will remain within the EU or that the EU will exist
either in its present form or at all in twenty years time.
Moreover, the Celts belief that they may have an
independence within the European Union which will provide
subsidies to replace those currently given by England is,
with the recent enlargement and prospective further
enlargement of the EU, a fantasy of colossal proportions.
What would be the consequences of a dissolution of Britain
with England also removing itself from the foetid embrace of
the EU? For England it is difficult to envisage any
insuperable disadvantage, but easy to see definite and
substantial advantages. She would be shorn of the burden of
Celtic subsidies, both direct and indirect, while her very
considerable population, wealth and general sophistication
would ensure that she could maintain without any real
difficulty the present levels of government provision from
the welfare state to the military. Moreover, England would
be able to act wholeheartedly in her own interests rather
than constantly tailoring national decisions to take into
account the demands of the Celts, who in all honestly,
increasingly resemble a squadron of albatrosses around
Albion's neck.
The only important disadvantages for England could be balance
of payments difficulties (primarily from the loss of oil, gas
and whiskey production) and ructions in the international
institutional sphere. Happily, adverse balances of trade
are (eventually) self-correcting even if the correction, as
is the case with America, can seem an age coming. Moreover,
with the free global currency market and a floating pound, an
adverse balance of trade does not hold the horrors it once
did, for international borrowing is infinitely easier than it
was even ten years past and devaluation of the currency is
not viewed as a national humiliation. England might be
temporarily embarrassed by a substantially increased trade
deficit, but there is no reason to believe that it would be
prolonged or seriously affect the English economy.
As for international upheaval, it is conceivable that
England would be unable to sustain a claim to Britain's
privileged position on international bodies such as the UN
Security Council and the board of IMF. However, this is
unlikely for a number of reasons. To begin with there is the
precedent of Russia which assumed all of the Soviet Union's
international entitlements. Britain is also the United
States' only halfway reliable ally on most of these
international boards. To this may be added Britain's
position as one of the larger international paymasters and
providers of reliable military muscle. None of these facts
need essentially change with the substitution of England for
Britain. Perhaps most importantly, the denial to England of
any of Britain's institutional places would pose the awkward
question of who was to take any vacant position. This could
(and almost certainly would) in turn raise the whole question
of whether the constitutions of most world bodies are
equitable or suited to the modern world. (The constitutions
were after all created approximately fifty years ago and are
in no sense equitable). To deny England could mean the
opening of a can of worms. Conversely, it could be plausibly
argued that membership of such international bodies
represents a liability rather than an advantage and England
would be well shot of them.
But if England could contemplate independence without real
qualms, the same can not be said for Wales, Ulster or even a
Scotland with a right to oil and gas revenues. The sobering
truth (or it should be one) for Celtic nationalists is that
the Celtic provinces all produce a substantially smaller
tax revenue per head than England. They also receive
considerably more in direct government investment than
England. This means that not only do the Celts have more
spent upon them per head, they also make a lesser
proportional contribution to those matters of national
importance - the armed forces, diplomacy and so forth - than
the English.
To these easily quantifiable benefits may be added a
disproportionate Celtic share of government subsidies to
bribe firms into setting up factories on inappropriate sites
and a large, perhaps disproportionate share, of public jobs
financed by national government, Scotland, for example,
administers much of England's social security, PAYE and
schedule D tax and has a disproportionate number of army
regiments; Wales plays host to the Vehicle Licensing Centre;
Ulster contains the Short shipyard. On top of these publicly
financed benefits may be placed the inestimable advantages
of free trade with England and the assurance which being part
of a prosperous and advanced nation state of fifty eight
million gives foreign investors and companies.
The truth is that none of the would be Celtic states, unlike
England, would be large enough or rich enough to maintain
government spending and services at anywhere near the
current level. Moreover, the cost of their separate state
administrations would almost certainly be proportionately
substantially greater than that of England because of the
loss of the advantages of scale. Nor for reasons already
stated would they be likely to obtain the largesse currently
handed out to the Republic of Ireland by the EU. Indeed, it
is quite probable that all or some of them could be refused
membership of the EU because of Germany's fear of incurring
liabilities for more beggar nations.
It is also reasonable to ask what would happen if an external
military threat appeared. (Unlikely in the immediate future
but not improbable over the next fifty years). Even if
independent Celtic states were members of the EU, it is
carrying optimism to the limit to imagine that they would
receive active military help from that quarter. In the end
they would have to turn to England for help.
The Celts should also realise that an independent England
could act, without infringing any of its general
international obligations, in ways which would gravely
disadvantage the Celts. It could impose passport regulations.
It could refuse reciprocal social security and health
provisions. It could insist upon work permits. Because the
need for emigration is much greater in the Celtic parts of
Britain than in England and the number of Celts on benefit in
England vastly exceeds that of the English in Scotland,
Wales and Ulster, such measures could be utterly calamitous
for independent Celtic states.
There is also the ticklish problem of the national debt. In
the event of the independence of Scotland, Wales or Ulster,
or the amalgamation of Ulster with the Irish Republic, a
proportionate share (based on population) of the UK national
debt would have to be born by a seceding part of the UK.
Scotland's share, for example, would be currently in excess
of 30 billion pounds; that of Wales approximately 15 billion.
Even at current rates, the financing of the interest alone
would cost between two and three billion a year.
Ulster has a particular problem whether it remains
independent or becomes submerged in a united Ireland. The
removal of English subsidies alone would be a massive blow
because they are of a different magnitude (when the
expenditure of the armed forces in Ulster and special
compensation payments for terrorist actions are taken into
account) to those in Scotland and Wales. But if the EU
refused to continue, either in whole or in part, subsidising
the Republic of Ireland, Ulster would almost certainly have
to bear a massive decline in Irish cross border trading.
When it comes to paying their own way independent Celtic
states would also have to consider the effect of confidence
on their finances. If independent Celtic states were deemed
to be poorer credit risks than Britain is now as a whole,
which is probable, they would have to pay more for their
future public and private borrowing in the form of higher
interest rates. That would apply whether or not they were
members of EMU, for a universal ECB bank rate does not mean
that everyone can borrow at the same rate. A lender still has
to believe that the borrower is worth the risk.
Even if the most favourable conditions envisaged by Celtic
Nationalists could be secured - essentially the same
conditions currently enjoyed by the Republic of Ireland,
Portugal etc - the omens would not be good. To begin with
beggar nations within the EU can never be sure that the money
will keep hitting the bottom of the begging bowl. To have an
economy as dependent upon handouts as the Republic of
Ireland's is simply courting disaster. Then there is the
natural price to pay for such money, the supporting of the
donor nations through thick and thin. This can, and often
does mean, going against the direct interest of one's own
people. (England - because it is from England rather than
Britain that the EU Danegeld is extracted in practice - has
the sovereign distinction of uniformly voting against the
interests of its people and being the paymaster to the beggar
nations). Nor should beggar nations be under any illusion
that the EU will generally protect their interests in
international disputes. The equation is quite clear: votes
for money and to hell with the long term interests of the
populations of the poorer EU states if these clash with the
interests of the powerful.
Looked at unsentimentally, the prospect for an independent
Scotland, Wales or Ulster is one of poverty, a decayed
welfare state, established companies moving across the border
into England, foreign companies refusing to settle because of
a lack of subsidies and the absence of the security of a
large nation state, massive emigration of the middle classes
and extreme levels of unemployment for those left behind.
But what about the oil and gas? I can hear the Scots
Nationalists positively screaming. Well, the current tax
take, at less than 2 billion pounds, is relatively trivial in
terms of the revenue an independent Scotland would require.
(It would barely finance their share of the national debt at
current interest rates). Moreover, not all oil is in
Scottish waters. Further, even the revenues from oil within
Scots waters might be claimed in part by both the various
islanders, who fear Scots rule, and England (on the grounds
that because the project was started when Britain was a
unitary state, the rewards should continue to be split
proportionately according to the new states' various
populations). There are also the unfortunate facts that
British oil is very expensive to produce and may well become
uncompetitive as countries such as China expand production or
other forms of energy become cheaper, and, more definitely,
oil extraction at its present level is unlikely to last for
more than another generation. Oil and gas production revenues
would be a poor pair of crutches to prop up an impoverished
independent Scotland.
In seeking independence or a large measure of home rule,
Celts risk rousing a sleeping giant, English nationalism. By
offering even limited devolution to Scotland and Wales the
Labour Party will almost certainly create the desire for an
English parliament. The natural outcome of such a splitting
of political responsibilities will be the growth of a
resentment by the English of the subsidies currently given to
the Celts. From such a resentment will come a desire within
England for each country within Britain to finance both the
cost of home rule and a proportionate share of general
charges such as defence and the servicing of the national
debt. From that point it is but a single stride for any of
the constituent parts of the UK to full independence, the
sloughing off of the emotional bonds which have bound Britain
together by a declaration of independence. What the Celts
cannot reasonably expect to have for very long is home rule
financed by England, for that would be having your political
cake and eating it.
Celts should keep ever before them one salutary possibility.
They may find the independence decision taken out of their
hands for the English, if constantly insulted and traduced,
could decide to declare their independence. Think long and
hard, you Scots , Welsh and Catholic Irish, before
attempting to making complete Celts of yourselves.
?
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
White Spirit
Unfortunately, the unruly Celts are also starting to play the victim
game in Cornwall as well.
Saracene
> Note: I wrote this some years ago. I shall be updating it over the next
> few months but its basic premise remains sound, namely, independence for
> Scotchland would spell disater for the Scotch children. . RH
>
> Don't make complete Celts of yourselves
>
Taffies, should count as Celts, no?
Robert Henderson
<fac7cd64-9838-46fc...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Saracene <john...@gmail.com> writes
Indeed. RH
Paul C
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
England is as much Celtic as the other countries of the UK.
Halmyre
> few months but its basic premise remains sound, namely, independence for
> Scotchland would spell disater for the Scotch children. . RH
>
<snip proof that Henderarse can't write for toffee>
If we Celts are such a burden on you poor English, why are you so keen
to keep a hold of us? Is it because you know fine well that without
our valuable input (our firm guiding hand, if you will) England would
be a third-world cesspit that would make the poorest African state
look like Shangri-La by comparison? I mean, you even had to rely on us
to continue the Royal line when the House of Tudor finally ran into
the buffers.
--
Halmyre
Lou Ravi
Yeah but that was ages ago, they've imported Germans since then.
McKevvy
You know fuck all about Ireland, Scotland or the Celts and you're only
deluding yourself and those who can't think for themselves.
McKevvy
Saracene
Robert Peffers
"White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hf3d69$ev7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> An excellent article.
>
> Unfortunately, the unruly Celts are also starting to play the victim game
> in Cornwall as well.
>
started an excellent troll.
As it is you are, to use a good Scottish lowland language expression, "yer
heid's fu o blethers, ye numptie".
Awa an bile yer heid.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"Saracene" <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fac7cd64-9838-46fc...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Saracene
> "Saracene" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
Why not?
Robert Peffers
"Paul C" <pa...@omne.uk.net> wrote in message
news:dqrah59roasosu9ak...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:19:29 +0000, Robert Henderson
> <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> England is as much Celtic as the other countries of the UK.
their own history, laughingly think they are all\ Anglo Saxon.
--
Auld Bob
Custos Custodum
news:4e989518-1604-4224...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On 1 Dec, 22:35, "Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "Saracene" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fac7cd64-9838-46fc...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.
>> .. On 1 Dec, 14:19, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:> Note: I wrote this some years ago. I shall be updating it
>> over the next
>> > few months but its basic premise remains sound, namely,
>> > independence for Scotchland would spell disater for the Scotch
>> > children. . RH
>>
>> > Don't make complete Celts of yourselves
>>
>> Northern Irish Protestants, being mostly descended from Jocks and
>> Taffies, should count as Celts, no?
>> No
>
> Why not?
Because the Plantation Scots were predominantly Lowlanders and in the 16th-
17th centuries lowland Scots were no more or less Celtic than the English
were, being of much the same genetic mix.
Robert Peffers
"Halmyre" <flashgord...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7a2798de-a6c0-43af...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
--
Halmyre
You have to wonder at the English education system. The whole history of the
country is one of being defeated by invaders. Now the teachers do actually
teach this to the poor dears, the trouble is they teach that the living
English are descended from these invaders. However, the strange thing is
that they sort of pick & mix their belief in just which of these invaders
passed on their genes to the modern English people.
So let's just examine this for a moment - The original southern Britons were
invaded by the Romans, who ruled from around AD 43 to AD 410, and these
Romans ruled, (note: It was not then England), southern Britain. Now it is
important to remember the Roman troops were from all over the Roman Empire
but their bosses were high ranking Romans. Yet the modern English do not
seem to think that they are descended from either the Roman troops or the
Roman rulers. I wonder why?
Anyway, the Romans left and the residents of Southern Britain were totally
unable to run their country by themselves, nor were they trained to defend
themselves after nearly 370 years of Roman occupation. So they nipped across
the channel and engaged the war-like Angles, Jutes, Saxons and Franks as
mercenaries to fight for them. They made this an attractive deal for these
with the offer of free land. The incomers did come but after a short spell
they realised the natives were there for the taking and they just took over
and ran the country. The same thing happened with the Normans and even in
some parts by the Vikings and Norsemen. Yet of all these invaders the modern
English think that they are descendants of only the Angles & Saxons.
Now for the real truth - modern science has proved beyond all doubt that
while all these invaders, as is the way of invaders, did have a bit of nooky
with the natives, the general trend was to keep themselves as an elite
ruling class and to not, generally, interbreed with the southern Britons.
The facts are that less than 5% of the modern English carry Anglo Saxon
genes, (and that only in some areas).
The modern English are thus 95% Britons like the rest of us. What is even
more laughable is that these numpties have the strange idea that everyone in
Scotland, Ireland, Wales and the English West country are Celts. There were
dozens of ancient Briton tribes and the Romans gave the Northern ones a
generic name, "Picts", but that is only part of the story for the tribes
that lived on the coasts close to the Irish Sea were actually basically the
same peoples. The country was rough and dense forest but the seas and rivers
were easier to navigate so The Scots held territory on both sides of the
Irish sea. Thus, in what is now Scotland, we had the Britons, (Picts), the
Scots and parts of the very northern areas, (including the islands), were
nearer to Norway, Sweden, Denmark and even Iceland.
So just where do these numpties get the idea they are Anglo Saxon and
everyone else is Celtic?
The genes prove them wrong and so does a little common sense use while
reading history.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"Lou Ravi" <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote in message
news:4b158669$0$896$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
Don't you know the late Queen Mother was a Scot, a Bows-Lyon in fact.
Then the present Queen married a Greek Prince- didn't you know Phillip was a
Greek?
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"McKevvy" <vicko_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:31d7b9d2-0525-4d66...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
McKevvy
The basis of the SNP for Scottish independence has nothing whatsoever to do
with hate of the English. In fact those who exhibit such hate are thrown out
of the party. So if the poster has nothing better to say on the matter they
can go somewhere else to be victims.
The policy of the SNP is that England are our nearest and dearest neighbours
and while we love our neighbours, we just do not want them to run our
country, have access to our purse and bank accounts or our larders. If they
look after their own and we look after our own we will all be best of
friends and the things, like defence, that are common interests we can, as
best friends, agree on policy to best serve us all.
It really begins to look like the hate thing is all on the English side.
Which begs the question - if you hate us so much, why are you so intent upon
holding on to Scotland, Ireland and Wales?
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
you will be better placed to discuss a topic that is obviously way above
your head.
By the way I have posted some English history in another post for such as
you.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"Custos Custodum" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:hf471q$ipf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
people.
--
Auld Bob
.
Robert Henderson
<peff...@btinternet.com> writes
>you will be better placed to discuss a topic that is obviously way
>above your head
ROTFL! Oh, the irony.......... RH
Robert Henderson
<wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> writes
>An excellent article.
>
>Unfortunately, the unruly Celts are also starting to play the victim
>game in Cornwall as well.
>
All 50 of them? Everyone a middle class incomer and probably an
academic I would guess. RH
Robert Henderson
<pa...@omne.uk.net> writes
>On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:19:29 +0000, Robert Henderson
><phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>England is as much Celtic as the other countries of the UK.
You wish. RH
Robert Henderson
<7a2798de-a6c0-43af...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Halmyre <flashgord...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>If we Celts are such a burden on you poor English, why are you so keen
>to keep a hold of us?
We aren't. RH
Robert Henderson
<31d7b9d2-0525-4d66...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
McKevvy <vicko_...@hotmail.com> writes
>know fuck all
You have yourself to the life... RH
Robert Henderson
<peff...@btinternet.com> writes
>
>It really begins to look like the hate thing is all on the English
>side.
"Doctor.... RH
>Which begs the question - if you hate us so much, why are you so intent
>upon holding on to Scotland, Ireland and Wales?
We aren't. It is our Quisling political class who want to retain the UK,
Auld Bob Politicalilliteraters ... RH
Lou Ravi
Of course I damn well know. Did I say the present members of the royal
family were Germans? I did not. What I said was "they've imported
Germans since then" which is 100% true. Don't they teach you numpties
history?
It's Bowes-Lyon btw.
Saracene
And Phillip does not have much Greek blood in him.
The last monarch to have been as much as half-English by birth and
heredity was Queen Anne (1702-14). Her father, James, Duke of York
made what was considered a misalliance, marrying a commoner, Anne
Hyde, whose father had been a mere lawyer, though as Charles II's
chief minister (1660-67) he was created Earl of Clarendon. None of
Anne's 17 children lived to adulthood. So, when the poor woman, who
had suffered for years from gout and dropsy, died in 1714, it was
necessary to import, as her nearest Protestant relation, George,
Elector of Hanover. The British monarchy therefore became German. (His
family name was Guelph, but they are usually known as the House of
Hanover, or the Hanoverians.)
Of course George, a dull man of 54, unable to speak English, and with
no desire to learn the language, wasn't 100 per cent German. His
grandmother, who is generally, if confusingly, known as Elizabeth of
Bohemia, was the daughter of James VI - the King of Scotland who in
1603 became also James I of England - and his Danish wife, Anne.
Elizabeth was married to a German prince, Frederick, Elector Palatine
of the Rhine, who in 1618 was offered the throne of Bohemia (the
modern Czech Republic) and rashly accepted it, thus kicking off the
terrible Thirty Years War.
George's line was established, and for the next century and a half
their sons and daughters married only other Germans. There were two
reasons for this: first, the rule that royals must marry other royals,
and there was fortunately an abundance of princes and princesses in
the numerous German states; second, the chosen wife or husband must be
a Protestant, and this excluded all royals south of the Rhine.
Saracene
Have they now become Celtic enough to count as Celts? Or is the whole
Celtic thing a bit of a myth anyway?
Farmer Giles
"Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:OOKdnXdxft6UO4jW...@bt.com...
'They' clearly didn't teach you very much, old Thickers.
Prince Philip does not have a drop of Greek blood in his veins - his family
background is Danish/German, and the Queen Mother was not a Scot. She was
born in England to an English mother, a Cavendish-Bentinck. I see that your
view of history is as selective and one-eyed as ever!
Saracene
> "Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:OOKdnXdxft6UO4jW...@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Lou Ravi" <j.mur...@libertysurf.fr> wrote in message
> >news:4b158669$0$896$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
> >> Halmyre wrote:
> >>> On 1 Dec, 14:19, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Note: I wrote this some years ago. I shall be updating it over the
> >>>> next few months but its basic premise remains sound, namely,
> >>>> independence for Scotchland would spell disater for the Scotch
> >>>> children. . RH
>
> >>> <snip proof that Henderarse can't write for toffee>
>
> >>> If we Celts are such a burden on you poor English, why are you so keen
> >>> to keep a hold of us? Is it because you know fine well that without
> >>> our valuable input (our firm guiding hand, if you will) England would
> >>> be a third-world cesspit that would make the poorest African state
> >>> look like Shangri-La by comparison? I mean, you even had to rely on us
> >>> to continue the Royal line when the House of Tudor finally ran into
> >>> the buffers.
>
> >> Yeah but that was ages ago, they've imported Germans since then.
>
> > What do they teach you numpties as history?
>
> > Don't you know the late Queen Mother was a Scot, a Bows-Lyon in fact.
> > Then the present Queen married a Greek Prince- didn't you know Phillip was
> > a Greek?
>
> 'They' clearly didn't teach you very much, old Thickers.
>
> Prince Philip does not have a drop of Greek blood in his veins -
I think he has some that goes back to the Byzantine emperors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_ancestry_of_Greek_Royal_Family
In 1863, the 17-year-old Prince William of Denmark was elected as King
of the Hellenes (Greece). King George I, as he came to be known, was
the son of Louise of Hesse-Cassel and King Christian IX of Denmark,
who himself had been elected heir to the throne upon the extinction of
the main royal line. George I's wife Queen Olga was Russian; however,
both monarchs were descended from Greek rulers of the Byzantine
Empire.
White Spirit
> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hf3d69$ev7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> As it is you are, to use a good Scottish lowland language expression, "yer
> heid's fu o blethers, ye numptie".
> Awa an bile yer heid.
Of course, your Scotch lowlands English is entirely Germanic in origin.
Catweazel
> "Lou Ravi" <j.mur...@libertysurf.fr> wrote in message
"Phil the Greek" is of the house of Battenberg.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
I wonder where they got the word "kirk" from when referring to a church :-)
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
White Spirit
> You have to wonder at the English education system. The whole history of the
> country is one of being defeated by invaders.
A gross distortion of the facts. English history starts with the
Anglo-Saxon invasions, the subsequent invasions being the Danish
invasions, which were eventually repelled, and the Norman Conquest. It
remains to be seen how complete the current immigration invasion will be.
> Now the teachers do actually
> teach this to the poor dears, the trouble is they teach that the living
> English are descended from these invaders. However, the strange thing is
> that they sort of pick & mix their belief in just which of these invaders
> passed on their genes to the modern English people.
Here we go...
> So let's just examine this for a moment - The original southern Britons were
> invaded by the Romans, who ruled from around AD 43 to AD 410, and these
> Romans ruled, (note: It was not then England), southern Britain. Now it is
> important to remember the Roman troops were from all over the Roman Empire
> but their bosses were high ranking Romans. Yet the modern English do not
> seem to think that they are descended from either the Roman troops or the
> Roman rulers. I wonder why?
Because we are not.
> Anyway, the Romans left and the residents of Southern Britain were totally
> unable to run their country by themselves, nor were they trained to defend
> themselves after nearly 370 years of Roman occupation. So they nipped across
> the channel and engaged the war-like Angles, Jutes, Saxons and Franks as
> mercenaries to fight for them.
It's highly unlikely that the Franks were involved, but evidence
suggests that very many Frisians were.
> They made this an attractive deal for these
> with the offer of free land. The incomers did come but after a short spell
> they realised the natives were there for the taking and they just took over
> and ran the country. The same thing happened with the Normans
The Norman Conquest was not of the same nature. There were relatively
few Normans and they simply replaced the ruling classes. This did not
happen with the Anglo Saxon invasion, a complete invasion that took
place in successive waves.
> and even in
> some parts by the Vikings and Norsemen.
The Norsemen visited Scotland. England was invaded by Danes.
> Yet of all these invaders the modern
> English think that they are descendants of only the Angles & Saxons.
Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians with a significant Danish
contribution and, to a small extent, Norman/Frankish.
> Now for the real truth - modern science has proved beyond all doubt that
> while all these invaders, as is the way of invaders, did have a bit of nooky
> with the natives, the general trend was to keep themselves as an elite
> ruling class and to not, generally, interbreed with the southern Britons.
Not so. For the Anglo Saxon invasions, the linguistic evidence,
archaeological record and examination of written literature suggests
that the native inhabitants the Germanic tribes supplanted were wiped
out utterly in England (barring Cornwall).
> The facts are that less than 5% of the modern English carry Anglo Saxon
> genes, (and that only in some areas).
The fact is that we simply do not know because the scientific methods
are incomplete. The studies often contradict each other, with one study
suggesting a common Iberian genetic footprint with another suggesting no
genetic difference between England and Denmark/Frisia and a marked
genetic difference between England and the 'Celtic' areas.
Until the science can prove it conclusively one way or the other, I'm
going with the evidence we do know from material culture, archaeology
linguistics and literature.
> The modern English are thus 95% Britons like the rest of us. What is even
> more laughable is that these numpties have the strange idea that everyone in
> Scotland, Ireland, Wales and the English West country are Celts.
Actually, it seems that Scotland is significantly English. Amusingly,
the language you refer to as 'Scots' is a direct descendant of the
Northumbrian dialect of Old English.
> The genes prove them wrong and so does a little common sense use while
> reading history.
The genes prove nothing so far and where common sense is concerned, the
linguistic and archaeological records are far more reliable than a
gaggle of geneticists pioneering techniques and claiming conclusions
that don't reconcile with one another.
White Spirit
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:19:29 +0000, Robert Henderson
> <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> England is as much Celtic as the other countries of the UK.
Absolutely incorrect. No doubt you have been reading a genetic study
that claims what you wish to believe but unfortunately for you it has
been contradicted by other genetic studies.
White Spirit
> In message <hf3d69$ev7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, White Spirit
> <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> writes
>> An excellent article.
>> Unfortunately, the unruly Celts are also starting to play the victim
>> game in Cornwall as well.
> All 50 of them? Everyone a middle class incomer and probably an
> academic I would guess. RH
When I visit Cornwall, which I don't do very often as I prefer the
fields of Norfolk, I see Cornish flags everywhere and, apparently, there
are going to be Cornish street signs now - presumably for the fifty
people who can read them. I've even heard calls for independence!
Let them have it, along with the Scots and the Welsh. I'm fed up with
subsidising people who resent us.
White Spirit
> The basis of the SNP for Scottish independence has nothing whatsoever to do
> with hate of the English. In fact those who exhibit such hate are thrown out
> of the party. So if the poster has nothing better to say on the matter they
> can go somewhere else to be victims.
> The policy of the SNP is that England are our nearest and dearest neighbours
> and while we love our neighbours, we just do not want them to run our
> country, have access to our purse and bank accounts or our larders. If they
> look after their own and we look after our own we will all be best of
> friends and the things, like defence, that are common interests we can, as
> best friends, agree on policy to best serve us all.
> It really begins to look like the hate thing is all on the English side.
> Which begs the question - if you hate us so much, why are you so intent upon
> holding on to Scotland, Ireland and Wales?
My opinion on Scottish independence has nothing to do with hate. I'd
welcome such a change as I don't see any good reason for us to subsidise
people who seem to resent us.
Robert Peffers
> Robert Peffers wrote:
>> "Lou Ravi" <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote in message
>> news:4b158669$0$896$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>>> Halmyre wrote:
>>>> On 1 Dec, 14:19, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Note: I wrote this some years ago. I shall be updating it over the
>>>>> next few months but its basic premise remains sound, namely,
>>>>> independence for Scotchland would spell disater for the Scotch
>>>>> children. . RH
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip proof that Henderarse can't write for toffee>
>>>>
>>>> If we Celts are such a burden on you poor English, why are you so
>>>> keen to keep a hold of us? Is it because you know fine well that
>>>> without our valuable input (our firm guiding hand, if you will)
>>>> England would be a third-world cesspit that would make the poorest
>>>> African state look like Shangri-La by comparison? I mean, you even
>>>> had to rely on us to continue the Royal line when the House of
>>>> Tudor finally ran into the buffers.
>>>
>>> Yeah but that was ages ago, they've imported Germans since then.
>>>
>> What do they teach you numpties as history?
>>
>> Don't you know the late Queen Mother was a Scot, a Bows-Lyon in fact.
>> Then the present Queen married a Greek Prince- didn't you know
>> Phillip was a Greek?
>
> Of course I damn well know.
Did I say the present members of the royal
> family were Germans? I did not. What I said was "they've imported Germans
> since then" which is 100% true.
but a mixture with a lot of Scottish and Greek mixed through thyem.
> Don't they teach you numpties history?
>
> It's Bowes-Lyon btw.
hands and missed the error when I read it through.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
the UK population are, and have always been Britons.
There were dozens of native tribes. Including, here in Scotland, The Scots.
However, the fact that they are only from what is now Ireland does not hold
water. The facts are that way back then the land was very rough and land
based travel difficult. The superhighways were the seas and rivers so the
people living on coasts had an easy path to nearby coasts. In fact there are
still places in Ireland where the locals cross to Scotland for a night out
as it is easier to do so than journey to the nearest Irish town. The Scots
inhabited both sides of the Irish sea. It was the Romans who used the
generic term Picts to describe the several Scottish tribes of ancient
Britons. I'm not about to go and get the details and copy their names here
again. There were dozens, though. Whether they were all Celtic is thus a
moot point. The main point being that a Scottii invasion from Ireland is not
supported by a shred of evidence. Then there is the fact that the Brythonic
language was spoken right up the west coast of Scotland and included all of
Strathclyde, much of Central Scotland and most of the Borders areas. In fact
the Arthurian legend could well be even more Scottish than Welsh. There are
theories that Camelon, (near Falkirk), derives from Camelot and then we have
Arthurs Seat in Edinburgh. The historians will tell you that there are a
great many very old stone age sites all over Scotland with a great many
standing stones and other sites. The real biggy, though, is that by testing
the genes all over Great Britain they have established we are all over 90%
still of Briton stock. The real myth is thus that the English are Anglo
Saxon and different from other British countries. Which all gives the lie to
the racist twaddle. There are indeed great differences between all four UK
countries but the genes prove that these are cultural rather than bloodline.
Indeed the old Scots saying, "We are aa Jock Tamson's bairns", has been
proven beyond doubt.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"Farmer Giles" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:65ednS5kP8kJtYvW...@brightview.com...
The Late Queen Mother was Born: August 4 1900, and was the daughter of Lord
Glamis (later 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne).
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
Germany.
In fact Lowland Scots and modern English derive from the same roots.
However, there is a great deal of difference from modern English and the
common roots it shares with much of Europe and further afield.
The languages that were Germanic related to what emerged as Dutch, Frisian,
German, the Scandinavian languages, and to Gothic.
So to say that we all speak the same language is a bit of a myth.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7nn27hF...@mid.individual.net...
Much of the Worlds languages are Germanic but they are not modern German.
--
Auld Bob
White Spirit
> I wouldn't know if it is a myth. Most Scots know the facts. The majority of
> the UK population are, and have always been Britons.
I believe the study that suggests this is flawed. The originator had to
invent a theory that the indigenous inhabitants spoke a Germanic
language that is the ancestor of modern English rather than English
being the descendant of the language spoken by the invading Germanic
tribes. Linguistic, historical and archaeological evidence show that it
is an utterly crackpot theory. The fact that the 'ruling tribes' just
happened to occupy the same speech area as the purported native Germanic
speakers is a coincidence to the extreme of being absurd.
White Spirit
> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7nn27hF...@mid.individual.net...
>> White Spirit wrote:
>>> Of course, your Scotch lowlands English is entirely Germanic in origin.
>> I wonder where they got the word "kirk" from when referring to a church
>> :-)
> I wonder why you think Germanic has much to do with present day German?
That's not what he said. 'Kirk' comes from Old Norse.
White Spirit
> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hf5il3$8l1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Of course, your Scotch lowlands English is entirely Germanic in origin.
> Indeed it is, but that Germanic has little to do with what is now modern
> Germany.
Who brought Germany up?
> In fact Lowland Scots and modern English derive from the same roots.
Yes, the Northumbrian dialect of Old English.
> However, there is a great deal of difference from modern English and the
> common roots it shares with much of Europe and further afield.
Actually, modern English only differs greatly in vocabulary, but the
core of the vocabulary - and more importantly, the grammar itself - is
Germanic. English grammar is very close to Danish grammar as well as
that of Low German and Dutch.
> The languages that were Germanic related to what emerged as Dutch, Frisian,
> German, the Scandinavian languages, and to Gothic.
> So to say that we all speak the same language is a bit of a myth.
Who said that we all speak the same language?
Robert Peffers
> Robert Peffers wrote:
>
>> You have to wonder at the English education system. The whole history of
>> the country is one of being defeated by invaders.
>
> A gross distortion of the facts. English history starts with the
> Anglo-Saxon invasions, the subsequent invasions being the Danish
> invasions, which were eventually repelled, and the Norman Conquest. It
> remains to be seen how complete the current immigration invasion will be.
Actually we are not debating English history but we are about who the
English are descended from.
The fact that there was no such place as England has little to do with the
people who lived in southern Britain in the beginning.
>
>> Now the teachers do actually teach this to the poor dears, the trouble is
>> they teach that the living English are descended from these invaders.
>> However, the strange thing is that they sort of pick & mix their belief
>> in just which of these invaders passed on their genes to the modern
>> English people.
>
> Here we go...
>
>> So let's just examine this for a moment - The original southern Britons
>> were invaded by the Romans, who ruled from around AD 43 to AD 410, and
>> these Romans ruled, (note: It was not then England), southern Britain.
>> Now it is important to remember the Roman troops were from all over the
>> Roman Empire but their bosses were high ranking Romans. Yet the modern
>> English do not seem to think that they are descended from either the
>> Roman troops or the Roman rulers. I wonder why?
>
> Because we are not.
That is just what I said.
But then you are not Anglo Saxon either.
Neither are you Normans, or anything else for that matter.
>
>> Anyway, the Romans left and the residents of Southern Britain were
>> totally unable to run their country by themselves, nor were they trained
>> to defend themselves after nearly 370 years of Roman occupation. So they
>> nipped across the channel and engaged the war-like Angles, Jutes, Saxons
>> and Franks as mercenaries to fight for them.
>
> It's highly unlikely that the Franks were involved, but evidence suggests
> that very many Frisians were.
>
Very debatable and also not important as you are not descended from them
anyway.
>> They made this an attractive deal for these with the offer of free land.
>> The incomers did come but after a short spell they realised the natives
>> were there for the taking and they just took over and ran the country.
>> The same thing happened with the Normans
>
> The Norman Conquest was not of the same nature. There were relatively few
> Normans and they simply replaced the ruling classes. This did not happen
> with the Anglo Saxon invasion, a complete invasion that took place in
> successive waves.
Not true. Please cite evidence for that claim?
The writings claimeng such invasions and waves were written a very long time
after the event and can be shown to be bunk.
>
>> and even in some parts by the Vikings and Norsemen.
>
> The Norsemen visited Scotland. England was invaded by Danes.
Definf England at the time of these invasions?
>
>> Yet of all these invaders the modern English think that they are
>> descendants of only the Angles & Saxons.
>
> Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians with a significant Danish contribution
> and, to a small extent, Norman/Frankish.
No! Sorry! The genetic evidence is that there is less than 5% Anglo Saxon in
the modern English
The invaders obviously did not generally interbreed with the natives and the
5% actually is for the entire UK.
In fact the English are genetically just the same as the rest of the UK.
That, of course, does not make them the same culturally.
>
>> Now for the real truth - modern science has proved beyond all doubt that
>> while all these invaders, as is the way of invaders, did have a bit of
>> nooky with the natives, the general trend was to keep themselves as an
>> elite ruling class and to not, generally, interbreed with the southern
>> Britons.
>
> Not so. For the Anglo Saxon invasions, the linguistic evidence,
> archaeological record and examination of written literature suggests that
> the native inhabitants the Germanic tribes supplanted were wiped out
> utterly in England (barring Cornwall).
Utter rubbish and the supporting evidence, "The Ecclesiastical History of
the English People", was written in Latin as the Historia ecclesiastica
gentis Anglorum by Bede. It was written around 731, and comprises of 400
pages. It is divided into 5 books which covers the ecclesiastical and
political history of England from the time of Julius Caesar to its
completion in around AD731. So the Romans came and went a long time before
Bede and his, "History", is mostly utter bunk.
>
>> The facts are that less than 5% of the modern English carry Anglo Saxon
>> genes, (and that only in some areas).
>
> The fact is that we simply do not know because the scientific methods are
> incomplete. The studies often contradict each other, with one study
> suggesting a common Iberian genetic footprint with another suggesting no
> genetic difference between England and Denmark/Frisia and a marked genetic
> difference between England and the 'Celtic' areas.
So just what are you designating as, "England", bearing in mind what was
England when the Anglo Saxons were in charge of, "Angleland"?
Also, what are you designating as, "Celtic", bearing in mind that the Romans
named a host of Northern British tribes as, "Picts"?
Not any more are there lots of boubts. The more recent studies have improved
as the science has improved.
>
> Until the science can prove it conclusively one way or the other, I'm
> going with the evidence we do know from material culture, archaeology
> linguistics and literature.
Like the Venerable Bede, you mean?
Who wrote on matters centuries before his time and who had no written
evidence to use. Just what ancient Briton writings can you think of?
>
>> The modern English are thus 95% Britons like the rest of us. What is even
>> more laughable is that these numpties have the strange idea that everyone
>> in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and the English West country are Celts.
>
> Actually, it seems that Scotland is significantly English. Amusingly, the
> language you refer to as 'Scots' is a direct descendant of the
> Northumbrian dialect of Old English.
Don't talk utter rubbish - That Nothumbrian language you speak of was spoken
in a different and sovereign kingdom of Northumbria. Northumbria was thus
NOT a part of England at that time. Neither were lots of other kingdoms such
as Mercia.
Furthermore what is described as old English was a very long way from Middle
English and even further from Modern English. The facts are that Lowland
Scots, and English, and for that matter Northumbrian, were all derived from
the common Germanic language that was the common root for almost all
European, and many other, World languages.
>
>> The genes prove them wrong and so does a little common sense use while
>> reading history.
>
> The genes prove nothing so far and where common sense is concerned, the
> linguistic and archaeological records are far more reliable than a gaggle
> of geneticists pioneering techniques and claiming conclusions that don't
> reconcile with one another.
Rubbish!
Your linguistics claims show this to be true. You have utterly no concept of
how things were back then. You attempt to show that Lowland Scots is
actually English by saying it is derived from Northumbrian, in itself that
is rubbish as the Brythonic language was in force from the south of Britain
right up to the Strathclyde area of Scotland. Then the simple fact that
Northumbria was not then part of England but a kingdom on its own shoots
that daft claim down.
The only correct way to see this matter is that these languages all come
from a common Germanic root but that root is NOT any closer to modern German
than Modern English is.
That is what I meant by the application of a little common sense.
Here is another proven fact for you. The long held belief that the early
immigrants first came across what is now the English Channel is utter
rubbish.
In fact many of them came from the now sunken, "Doggerland", that was a land
bridge to the more northern areas of the European continent. Guess what,
these spoke a Germanic language too. As Doggerland sank below the new North
Sea the high ground of what became Britain was emerging. This North Sea rose
because a rocky ridge that kept the cold Arctic waters out had ruptured and
the inrushing water sank Doggerland beneath the waves. There are some long
term settlements in the north that prove that what were once thought of as
hunter gatherers did, in fact, have bases they wandered from and too.
Into the bargain the land was very rough but the sea was more manageable and
thus was the superhighway of its day. Why would the immigrants fight their
way through hard land ways when they could sail up the coast? As for your
written evidence - there were no writers or readers back then. The first
records were from the Romans and these may well be distorted to fit Roman
politics.
So while the Scots, English, Irish and Welsh are different that difference
is not genetic but cultural and the genes prove it is so.
--
Auld Bob
Paul C
wrote:
>the Queen Mother was not a Scot. She was
>born in England to an English mother, a Cavendish-Bentinck.
What nationality is Kelly Holmes, Varmer?
Farmer Giles
In England
and was the daughter of Lord
> Glamis (later 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne).
And of Cecilia Nina Cavendish-Bentinck - who was English. So, she was born
in England with an English mother. Please tell us how that makes her
Scottish?
White Spirit
> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hf5ks7$m29$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>> You have to wonder at the English education system. The whole history of
>>> the country is one of being defeated by invaders.
>> A gross distortion of the facts. English history starts with the
>> Anglo-Saxon invasions, the subsequent invasions being the Danish
>> invasions, which were eventually repelled, and the Norman Conquest. It
>> remains to be seen how complete the current immigration invasion will be.
> Actually we are not debating English history but we are about who the
> English are descended from.
And you think that history has nothing to do with demonstrating who we
are descended from?
> The fact that there was no such place as England has little to do with the
> people who lived in southern Britain in the beginning.
The term 'Englalond' had been in long use by around 700AD.
>>> So let's just examine this for a moment - The original southern Britons
>>> were invaded by the Romans, who ruled from around AD 43 to AD 410, and
>>> these Romans ruled, (note: It was not then England), southern Britain.
>>> Now it is important to remember the Roman troops were from all over the
>>> Roman Empire but their bosses were high ranking Romans. Yet the modern
>>> English do not seem to think that they are descended from either the
>>> Roman troops or the Roman rulers. I wonder why?
>> Because we are not.
> That is just what I said.
> But then you are not Anglo Saxon either.
> Neither are you Normans, or anything else for that matter.
You are incorrect.
>>> Anyway, the Romans left and the residents of Southern Britain were
>>> totally unable to run their country by themselves, nor were they trained
>>> to defend themselves after nearly 370 years of Roman occupation. So they
>>> nipped across the channel and engaged the war-like Angles, Jutes, Saxons
>>> and Franks as mercenaries to fight for them.
>> It's highly unlikely that the Franks were involved, but evidence suggests
>> that very many Frisians were.
> Very debatable and also not important as you are not descended from them
> anyway.
So you say.
>>> They made this an attractive deal for these with the offer of free land.
>>> The incomers did come but after a short spell they realised the natives
>>> were there for the taking and they just took over and ran the country.
>>> The same thing happened with the Normans
>> The Norman Conquest was not of the same nature. There were relatively few
>> Normans and they simply replaced the ruling classes. This did not happen
>> with the Anglo Saxon invasion, a complete invasion that took place in
>> successive waves.
> Not true. Please cite evidence for that claim?
Firstly, let's consider archaeology of place names and linguistic
evidence. Aside from Cornwall, very few Roman and Brythonic place names
exist. This is good evidence that the Germanic tribes barely mingled
with the Brythonic inhabitants. Compare that to Ireland where, although
English is now their first language, the overwhelming majority of their
place names have Celtic origin. Given that we know that a Celtic
language was spoken in England (or southern Britain, if you prefer)
before the arrival of the Germanic tribes and that a Germanic language
generally referred to as Anglo Saxon or Old English became dominant
thereafter, it is absurd to believe that the tiny numbers of people you
allege could see their language become dominant in such a short space of
time. Furthermore, English place names were named when the Germanic
tribes established settlements. In other words, they did not live in
Brythonic settlements. There are no recorded examples of people living
within the Anglo Saxon kingdoms giving their children Brythonic names.
The two peoples simply did not mix and for Anglo Saxons to have been
completely dominant in the way they were, they must have had superiority
of numbers.
The archaeology of material culture shows a similar discontinuity.
Anglo Saxons lived in different style houses, had difference styles of
dress, used different jewellery, different weapons, different funerary
rites, different units of measurement (with the exception of the mile)
etc. Their religion was very different as was their society and
military organisation. There is little or no influence from the early
Romano-British culture on Anglo Saxon culture. In order to replace a
culture and language within such a short space of time, the people must
have been replaced.
> The writings claimeng such invasions and waves were written a very long time
> after the event and can be shown to be bunk.
No, they cannot be demonstrated to be bunk.
>>> and even in some parts by the Vikings and Norsemen.
>> The Norsemen visited Scotland. England was invaded by Danes.
> Definf England at the time of these invasions?
The area comprising the Anglo Saxon kingdoms. Referring to it as
'England' is convenient even though the geography is not precisely that
of modern day England.
>>> Yet of all these invaders the modern English think that they are
>>> descendants of only the Angles & Saxons.
>> Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians with a significant Danish contribution
>> and, to a small extent, Norman/Frankish.
> No! Sorry! The genetic evidence is that there is less than 5% Anglo Saxon in
> the modern English
> The invaders obviously did not generally interbreed with the natives and the
> 5% actually is for the entire UK.
That study is flawed and reliable evidence suggests that this cannot be
the case.
>>> Now for the real truth - modern science has proved beyond all doubt that
>>> while all these invaders, as is the way of invaders, did have a bit of
>>> nooky with the natives, the general trend was to keep themselves as an
>>> elite ruling class and to not, generally, interbreed with the southern
>>> Britons.
>> Not so. For the Anglo Saxon invasions, the linguistic evidence,
>> archaeological record and examination of written literature suggests that
>> the native inhabitants the Germanic tribes supplanted were wiped out
>> utterly in England (barring Cornwall).
> Utter rubbish and the supporting evidence, "The Ecclesiastical History of
> the English People", was written in Latin as the Historia ecclesiastica
> gentis Anglorum by Bede. It was written around 731, and comprises of 400
> pages. It is divided into 5 books which covers the ecclesiastical and
> political history of England from the time of Julius Caesar to its
> completion in around AD731. So the Romans came and went a long time before
> Bede and his, "History", is mostly utter bunk.
I'm not referring to Bede's history. I have given good evidence above.
>>> The facts are that less than 5% of the modern English carry Anglo Saxon
>>> genes, (and that only in some areas).
>> The fact is that we simply do not know because the scientific methods are
>> incomplete. The studies often contradict each other, with one study
>> suggesting a common Iberian genetic footprint with another suggesting no
>> genetic difference between England and Denmark/Frisia and a marked genetic
>> difference between England and the 'Celtic' areas.
> So just what are you designating as, "England", bearing in mind what was
> England when the Anglo Saxons were in charge of, "Angleland"?
I have explained above.
> Also, what are you designating as, "Celtic", bearing in mind that the Romans
> named a host of Northern British tribes as, "Picts"?
The Romano-British inhabitants before the Anglo Saxon invasions.
> Not any more are there lots of boubts. The more recent studies have improved
> as the science has improved.
No, it's still a mess upon which no one in their right mind would rely.
>>> The modern English are thus 95% Britons like the rest of us. What is even
>>> more laughable is that these numpties have the strange idea that everyone
>>> in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and the English West country are Celts.
>> Actually, it seems that Scotland is significantly English. Amusingly, the
>> language you refer to as 'Scots' is a direct descendant of the
>> Northumbrian dialect of Old English.
> Don't talk utter rubbish - That Nothumbrian language you speak of was spoken
> in a different and sovereign kingdom of Northumbria. Northumbria was thus
> NOT a part of England at that time. Neither were lots of other kingdoms such
> as Mercia.
Northumbrian is a dialect of Old English. Linguists and other scholars
agree on that. I don't know why you don't.
> Furthermore what is described as old English was a very long way from Middle
> English
Actually, there was a slow transition. Middle English seems to have
broken down into various dialects.
> and even further from Modern English.
Yes, it's called language drift.
> The facts are that Lowland
> Scots, and English, and for that matter Northumbrian, were all derived from
> the common Germanic language
Correct so far.
> that was the common root for almost all
> European, and many other, World languages.
Incorrect here. The parent language you are thinking of is Indo-European.
>>> The genes prove them wrong and so does a little common sense use while
>>> reading history.
>> The genes prove nothing so far and where common sense is concerned, the
>> linguistic and archaeological records are far more reliable than a gaggle
>> of geneticists pioneering techniques and claiming conclusions that don't
>> reconcile with one another.
> Rubbish!
> Your linguistics claims show this to be true. You have utterly no concept of
> how things were back then.
Sorry, old chap, but I studied this at university. The same university
that conducts genetic studies into the same, in fact.
> You attempt to show that Lowland Scots is
> actually English
It is.
> by saying it is derived from Northumbrian,
It is.
> in itself that
> is rubbish as the Brythonic language was in force from the south of Britain
> right up to the Strathclyde area of Scotland.
It wasn't after the Anglo Saxon invasions.
> Then the simple fact that
> Northumbria was not then part of England but a kingdom on its own shoots
> that daft claim down.
The political history is neither here nor there. I'm using standard
linguistic definitions that are not in doubt by anyone except you it
would seem.
> The only correct way to see this matter is that these languages all come
> from a common Germanic root
They come from a common root, of course, but linguists like to narrow
things down and the fact is that Scots is derived from Northumbrian
> but that root is NOT any closer to modern German
> than Modern English is.
Who said anything about modern German?
> That is what I meant by the application of a little common sense.
You could do with acquiring some sound knowledge, never mind common sense.
Paul C
<dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>White Spirit wrote:
>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>
>>> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:hf3d69$ev7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> As it is you are, to use a good Scottish lowland language expression,
>>> "yer heid's fu o blethers, ye numptie".
>>> Awa an bile yer heid.
>>
>> Of course, your Scotch lowlands English is entirely Germanic in origin.
>
>I wonder where they got the word "kirk" from when referring to a church :-)
I wonder where you got your trousers from. They're smashing.
Paul C
Your country subsidises no one. Your country is in fiscal deficit.
White Spirit
Thanks to which Scottish bank?
You put your foot right in it.
Farmer Giles
"Paul C" <pa...@omne.uk.net> wrote in message
news:ul4dh55mmo57n733n...@4ax.com...
Oh dear! Another attempt at diversion from Pauline - the chap(?) who
wouldn't accept Bob Boothby was Scottish - born in Scotland to a Scottish
family - because he had part of his education in England! (Although, it was
really because of revelations about Boothby's 'colourful' lifestyle!)
This is the same Pauline who also claimed the Englishman Nicholas Parsons
was Scottish because he went to university in Scotland!
I don't we need any lessons from you about nationality, Pauline.
White Spirit
> "Paul C" <pa...@omne.uk.net> wrote in message
> news:ul4dh55mmo57n733n...@4ax.com...
> Oh dear! Another attempt at diversion from Pauline - the chap(?) who
> wouldn't accept Bob Boothby was Scottish - born in Scotland to a Scottish
> family - because he had part of his education in England! (Although, it was
> really because of revelations about Boothby's 'colourful' lifestyle!)
> This is the same Pauline who also claimed the Englishman Nicholas Parsons
> was Scottish because he went to university in Scotland!
> I don't we need any lessons from you about nationality, Pauline.
I'm beginning to wonder about the Scotch education system given some of
the things being uttered in this thread ;)
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
I didn't say that Germanic = German
Farmer Giles
You've upset him now! There he is frantically moving the goalposts all over
the field, and you keep putting them back again. As RH would say: 'it isnae
fair'!
You should know that Old Thickers has his very own version of history - he
gets it from his hero, Alex Salmond!
White Spirit
> You've upset him now! There he is frantically moving the goalposts all over
> the field, and you keep putting them back again. As RH would say: 'it isnae
> fair'!
> You should know that Old Thickers has his very own version of history - he
> gets it from his hero, Alex Salmond!
The amusing thing said about Alex Salmond recently was that he doesn't
hate the English. The truth is that he has managed to tone it down in
order to make his stance more palatable.
I lived in Scotland for two years and had plenty of opportunity to see
him in action on the news and political programmes when he still used to
speak his mind.
Saracene
> "White Spirit" <wspi...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> Actually we are not debating English history but we are about who the
> English are descended from.
> The fact that there was no such place as England has little to do with the
> people who lived in southern Britain in the beginning.
>
>
Here is some surprising revisionist history:-
The orthodox view is that the entire population of the British Isles,
including England, was Celtic-speaking when Caesar invaded. But if
that were the case, a modest Anglo-Saxon invasion is unlikely to have
swept away all traces of Celtic language from the pre-existing
population of England. Yet there are only half a dozen Celtic words in
English, the rest being mainly Germanic, Norman or medieval Latin. One
explanation is that England was not mainly Celtic-speaking before the
Anglo-Saxons. Consider, for example, the near-total absence of Celtic
inscriptions in England (outside Cornwall), although they are abundant
in Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Brittany.
Who was here when the Romans came?
So who were the Britons inhabiting England at the time of the Roman
invasion? The history of pre-Roman coins in southern Britain reveals
an influence from Belgic Gaul. The tribes of England south of the
Thames and along the south coast during Caesar’s time all had Belgic
names or affiliations. Caesar tells us that these large intrusive
settlements had replaced an earlier British population, which had
retreated to the hinterland of southeast England. The latter may have
been the large Celtic tribe, the Catuvellauni, situated in the home
counties north of the Thames. Tacitus reported that between Britain
and Gaul “the language differs but little.”
The common language referred to by Tacitus was probably not Celtic,
but was similar to that spoken by the Belgae, who may have been a
Germanic people, as implied by Caesar. In other words, a Germanic-type
language could already have been indigenous to England at the time of
the Roman invasion. In support of this inference, there is some recent
lexical (vocabulary) evidence analysed by Cambridge geneticist Peter
Forster and continental colleagues. They found that the date of the
split between old English and continental Germanic languages goes much
further back than the dark ages, and that English may have been a
separate, fourth branch of the Germanic language before the Roman
invasion.
Apart from the Belgian connection in the south, my analysis of the
genetic evidence also shows that there were major Scandinavian
incursions into northern and eastern Britain, from Shetland to Anglia,
during the Neolithic period and before the Romans. These are
consistent with the intense cultural interchanges across the North sea
during the Neolithic and bronze age. Early Anglian dialects, such as
found in the old English saga Beowulf, owe much of their vocabulary to
Scandinavian languages. This is consistent with the fact that Beowulf
was set in Denmark and Sweden and that the cultural affiliations of
the early Anglian kingdoms, such as found in the Sutton Hoo boat
burial, derive from Scandinavia.
A picture thus emerges of the dark-ages invasions of England and
northeastern Britain as less like replacements than minority elite
additions, akin to earlier and larger Neolithic intrusions from the
same places. There were battles for dominance between chieftains, all
of Germanic origin, each invader sharing much culturally with their
newly conquered indigenous subjects.
So, based on the overall genetic perspective of the British, it seems
that Celts, Belgians, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings and Normans were
all immigrant minorities compared with the Basque pioneers, who first
ventured into the empty, chilly lands so recently vacated by the great
ice sheets.
Paul C
Lou Ravi
> In message <YoednRJEEpvqNYjW...@bt.com>, Robert Peffers
> <peff...@btinternet.com> writes
>>
>> It really begins to look like the hate thing is all on the English
>> side.
>
>
No, I think Robert is right on this as you seem to want to prove
regularly with your rants against the 'Scotch'.
Lou Ravi
> Firstly, let's consider archaeology of place names and linguistic
> evidence. Aside from Cornwall, very few Roman and Brythonic place
> names exist.
Without wishing to intervene particularly in this very interesting
discussion, I have to pick you up on this one. Leicester, Chester,
Londinium and dozens, if not hundreds, of others, prove you wrong on
this point. I might be more inclined to agree on the Brythonic though
Lou Ravi
How many Scots banks, how many English banks (inasmuch as multinational
banks really have a nationality)?
Lou Ravi
Because it had nothing to do with it. You seem to have serious
comprehension difficulties/
>> Did I say the present members of the royal
>> family were Germans? I did not. What I said was "they've imported
>> Germans since then" which is 100% true.
> Rubbish! If the present holders are not 100% German then they are not
> German but a mixture with a lot of Scottish and Greek mixed through
> thyem.
I never said the present royal family were German, I repeat what I
said: 'they've imported Germans since then'. That means, as you have
evident problems in understanding a simple statement, that between the
time of the Tudors and now, they imported Germans to run the country
(inasmuch as 'royalty' does run the country).
>> Don't they teach you numpties history?
>>
>> It's Bowes-Lyon btw.
> Yes, I know. You must excuse my typing skills, I have arthritis in
> both hands and missed the error when I read it through.
That's OK, I assumed it was a typo in fact. Not that that sort of thing
stops me remarking on it ;-)
White Spirit
> White Spirit wrote:
>> Firstly, let's consider archaeology of place names and linguistic
>> evidence. Aside from Cornwall, very few Roman and Brythonic place
>> names exist.
> Without wishing to intervene particularly in this very interesting
> discussion, I have to pick you up on this one. Leicester,
Leicester derives from 'Ligraceaster', which is Old English for the town
of the Liger tribe. 'Liger' is of indeterminate origin.
> Chester,
'Ceaster', the OE word for town. The Romans called it by another name.
> Londinium and dozens, if not hundreds, of others, prove you wrong on
> this point. I might be more inclined to agree on the Brythonic though
If there are hundreds, that is still very few compared to the numbers of
Germanic origin.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
It's grim oop north
White Spirit
> It's grim oop north
Which, as one should expect, has the most Danish place names :)
Robert Peffers
> Paul C wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:19:29 +0000, Robert Henderson
>> <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> England is as much Celtic as the other countries of the UK.
>
> Absolutely incorrect. No doubt you have been reading a genetic study that
> claims what you wish to believe but unfortunately for you it has been
> contradicted by other genetic studies.
Actually I base my history on fact rather than fiction. The first written
stuff was from the Romans and thus subject to the usual fact that the
winners in conflicts write the history, (A la, "he had weapons of mass
destruction and could launch them in 48 hours"). Stuff like that from the
Venerable Bede is utter bunk and written centuries after the events he
recorded. Then there is the usual assumptions that just do not hold water.
There was no England until the Angles gave PART of southern Britain their
name At which time it was nothing like the present country of England. Yet
we have people trotting out silly things like, "But the Scots lowland
language is based on English", or, "The Scots language is based on
Northumbrian and so it is English". Anyone could work out that the
Northumbria of those days was NOT England but a Kingdom in its own right.
The simple fact is that when another country takes over your country they do
NOT get too cosy with their victims. Just look at any other take over - The
Romans ruled as an elite but used every nation they took over as troops
and/or slaves. The Normans did the same as did the Europeans in the
Americas, Africa and Australasia. The native American tribes are still
extant as are the Aborigines in Australia and Maoris in New Zealand and
South Africa kept the races apart. So just what makes you so sure that the
Angles Saxons, Jutes, Franks, et al, were so very different? There is no
evidence, whatsoever, that they were not a ruling class that interbred with
the conquered population. The differing genetic studies are also a Red
Herring and the studies that use the correct model are right. The fact is
that there are correct and incorrect methods being compared. Take a simple
case. I saw a case a while ago that said we shared over 90% of our genes
with common earth worms. To a point this is true as is the statement that we
share over 90% of our genes with the whale. There is, though, a simple
explanation as to why we are neither earth worms or whales but to prove that
there is no use looking at what genetic makeup we share as we are looking
for a difference it is silly to look at what we share rather than what we do
not share. Which is why mitochondrial DNA is what has proved the differences
between various peoples. While there are still a few scientists who dispute
the DNA evidence there are many, many more who back it up.
So too does both geology, geometry and good old fashioned common sense.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
> Robert Henderson wrote:
>
>> In message <hf3d69$ev7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, White Spirit
>> <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> writes
>
>>> An excellent article.
>
>>> Unfortunately, the unruly Celts are also starting to play the victim
>>> game in Cornwall as well.
>
>> All 50 of them? Everyone a middle class incomer and probably an academic
>> I would guess. RH
>
> When I visit Cornwall, which I don't do very often as I prefer the fields
> of Norfolk, I see Cornish flags everywhere and, apparently, there are
> going to be Cornish street signs now - presumably for the fifty people who
> can read them. I've even heard calls for independence!
>
> Let them have it, along with the Scots and the Welsh. I'm fed up with
> subsidising people who resent us.
Then you will have no trouble backing up that claim with hard facts?
Now just provide the hard facts or be made even more of a fool than you have
shown yourself to be already.
If you cannot back up you claim with official statistics we will expect you
to either withdraw them or just slink away like others before you.
(here we go again with yet another uninformed numptie)
--
Auld Bob
>
Robert Peffers
> Robert Peffers wrote:
>
>> The basis of the SNP for Scottish independence has nothing whatsoever to
>> do with hate of the English. In fact those who exhibit such hate are
>> thrown out of the party. So if the poster has nothing better to say on
>> the matter they can go somewhere else to be victims.
>
>> The policy of the SNP is that England are our nearest and dearest
>> neighbours and while we love our neighbours, we just do not want them to
>> run our country, have access to our purse and bank accounts or our
>> larders. If they look after their own and we look after our own we will
>> all be best of friends and the things, like defence, that are common
>> interests we can, as best friends, agree on policy to best serve us all.
>
>> upon holding on to Scotland, Ireland and Wales?
>
> welcome such a change as I don't see any good reason for us to subsidise
> people who seem to resent us.
been waiting for over 70 years.
Did I not just tell you that you are not resented, in fact you are our
nearest and dearest neighbours. It is evident from the threads on these
groups that the Scots do not resent the English while the English seem to
only be attempting to run the Scots down.
Now we will have your proof of those subsidies or you will be shown as an
idiot.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
First British financial institution to need bailed out.
--
Auld Bob
Lou Ravi
> Lou Ravi wrote:
>
>> White Spirit wrote:
>
>>> Firstly, let's consider archaeology of place names and linguistic
>>> evidence. Aside from Cornwall, very few Roman and Brythonic place
>>> names exist.
>
>> Without wishing to intervene particularly in this very interesting
>> discussion, I have to pick you up on this one. Leicester,
>
> Leicester derives from 'Ligraceaster', which is Old English for the
> town of the Liger tribe. 'Liger' is of indeterminate origin.
The 'Liger', OK, the 'cester' is pure Roman.
>> Chester,
>
> 'Ceaster', the OE word for town. The Romans called it by another
> name.
Castle I thought, but I won't argue on that one, there are plenty of
other 'cesters' to choose from.
>> Londinium and dozens, if not hundreds, of others, prove you wrong on
>> this point. I might be more inclined to agree on the Brythonic though
>
> If there are hundreds, that is still very few compared to the numbers
> of Germanic origin.
Indeed, and French. I used to live near a village in Essex (near Epping
Forest) called Theydon Bois (pronounced 'boys' by the locals, not 'bwa'
as in French). but to say there are few Roman (or other) place names is
erroneous IMO. I said hundreds, but it may well be thousands. I've never
counted.
Robert Peffers
You obviously don't know that ALL people born in the United Kingdom have
been registered as British since the two respective Acts Of Union in 1707.
That is the law. The only organisations that attempted to classify people to
different UK countries were the National sporting associations and they
hardly got it right by making place of birth the yardstick and even these
have changed their stance years ago. That was why we had two Scottish
footballing brothers born to two Scottish parents who, the brothers, never
played for Scotland. One was Joe Baker and the other his brother Jerry.
Their father was a soldier and Joe was born in England while Gerry was born
in the USA. I haven't seen Jerry for years but Joe is as Scottish as I am.
So once more you are talking rubbish.
The thing is that we belong to whichever UK country we choose to claim as
our own while our birth certificate says we are all British but does state
our place of birth.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
>
>>> Of course, your Scotch lowlands English is entirely Germanic in origin.
>
>> Indeed it is, but that Germanic has little to do with what is now modern
>> Germany.
>
> Who brought Germany up?
>
>> In fact Lowland Scots and modern English derive from the same roots.
>
> Yes, the Northumbrian dialect of Old English.
language. Furthermore when it spoke that language it was not part of the
England of those days. It was a sovereign kingdom in its own right.
>
>> However, there is a great deal of difference from modern English and the
>> common roots it shares with much of Europe and further afield.
>
> Actually, modern English only differs greatly in vocabulary, but the core
> of the vocabulary - and more importantly, the grammar itself - is
> Germanic. English grammar is very close to Danish grammar as well as that
> of Low German and Dutch.
>
>> The languages that were Germanic related to what emerged as Dutch,
>> Frisian, German, the Scandinavian languages, and to Gothic.
>> So to say that we all speak the same language is a bit of a myth.
>
> Who said that we all speak the same language?
was Old English, (which, incidentally was a misnomer).
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
were?
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
The official SNP line has always been that to hate the English will see you
thrown out of the party. There are many examples of this but the most well
known was the, "Seed of The Gael", (Siol nan Gaidheal), a group that were
expelled years ago.
Salmond, like most nationalists, has no hatred of the English and I've never
heard him ever indicate in any way that he does. So you will excuse me if I
call you a liar and demand you either provide a citation for your claims or
retract them.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
> Robert Peffers wrote:
>
>> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7nn27hF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> White Spirit wrote:
>
>
>>> :-)
>
>
>
>
I didn't say it was what he said.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
> Robert Peffers wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't know if it is a myth. Most Scots know the facts. The majority
>> of the UK population are, and have always been Britons.
>
> I believe the study that suggests this is flawed.
What study wouldthat be, then?
Considering I did not mention any specific study, I assume you are jumping
to a wrong conclusion.
There are many such studies and as time goes by the majority are now of the
opinion that all of the British Isles are mainly genetically Ancient Britons
with little impression being made by the Romans, Anglo Saxons, Normans but a
little more being contributed by the Scandinavians but even that in the old
Danelaw areas, Orkney, Shetland and the extreme North Coast.,
> The originator had to invent a theory that the indigenous inhabitants
> spoke a Germanic language that is the ancestor of modern English rather
> than English being the descendant of the language spoken by the invading
> Germanic tribes. Linguistic, historical and archaeological evidence show
> that it is an utterly crackpot theory. The fact that the 'ruling tribes'
> just happened to occupy the same speech area as the purported native
> Germanic speakers is a coincidence to the extreme of being absurd.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 08:43:00 -0000, "Farmer Giles" <Gi...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>>born in England to an English mother, a Cavendish-Bentinck.
>>
>
> Oh dear! Another attempt at diversion from Pauline - the chap(?) who
> wouldn't accept Bob Boothby was Scottish - born in Scotland to a Scottish
> family - because he had part of his education in England! (Although, it
> was really because of revelations about Boothby's 'colourful' lifestyle!)
>
> This is the same Pauline who also claimed the Englishman Nicholas Parsons
> was Scottish because he went to university in Scotland!
>
> I don't we need any lessons from you about nationality, Pauline.
>
>
>
them anyway. I told you before that every British born person has a legal
nationality of, "British". Their place of birth and their parental
connections have absolutely nothing to do with it. act is we are mostly all
genetically the same and the differences are not racial but cultural. I have
next door neighbours with three sons. The husband is English by culture and
the wife is Scottish. One son claims to be English, (in fact he took himself
off to England), the next son claims to be Scots while the last one couldn't
care less what he is. We claim the country that we want to be ours. Even the
sporting lot don't use place of birth these days.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
> Farmer Giles wrote:
>
>> "Paul C" <pa...@omne.uk.net> wrote in message
>> news:ul4dh55mmo57n733n...@4ax.com...
>
>> wouldn't accept Bob Boothby was Scottish - born in Scotland to a Scottish
>> family - because he had part of his education in England! (Although, it
>> was really because of revelations about Boothby's 'colourful' lifestyle!)
>
>> This is the same Pauline who also claimed the Englishman Nicholas Parsons
>> was Scottish because he went to university in Scotland!
>
>> I don't we need any lessons from you about nationality, Pauline.
>
> the things being uttered in this thread ;)
>
Says the one who has got most things very wrong.
Consider this - Much of Northumbria had the land argued over between England
and Scotland, but the Earldom of Northumbria was eventually recognised as
part of England by the Anglo-Scottish Treaty of York in 1237. So just which
country was it really part of in the beginning?
The northern border at Berwick-upon-Tweed, it is north of the Tweed, changed
hands several times. However, it was defined as subject to the laws of
England by the Wales and Berwick Act of 1746.The strange thing is the
territory was never legally transferred to England. So just who does Berwick
legally belong to?
let me give you a modern example. Who actually belongs to the British bases
that were transferred to USA law in WWII that Britain gave them 99 years
leases to in exchange for 50 old obsolete WWI Destroyers? These bases have
been subject to USA law since 1940 but are still part of the UK.
--
Auld Bob
Alan Smaill
> White Spirit wrote:
> > Lou Ravi wrote:
> >
> >> White Spirit wrote:
> >
> >>> Firstly, let's consider archaeology of place names and linguistic
> >>> evidence. Aside from Cornwall, very few Roman and Brythonic place
> >>> names exist.
> >
> >> Without wishing to intervene particularly in this very interesting
> >> discussion, I have to pick you up on this one. Leicester,
> >
> > Leicester derives from 'Ligraceaster', which is Old English for the
> > town of the Liger tribe. 'Liger' is of indeterminate origin.
>
> The 'Liger', OK, the 'cester' is pure Roman.
>
> >> Chester,
> >
> > 'Ceaster', the OE word for town. The Romans called it by another
> > name.
>
> Castle I thought, but I won't argue on that one, there are plenty of
> other 'cesters' to choose from.
castrum = camp, fort, I thought.
"Deva" as a place to the Romans, but they wouldn't have called it
just "castrum".
I see on
http://www.localhistories.org/chester.html
"The Saxons gave Chester its name.
They called any group of Roman buildings a ceaster."
This suggests the possibility that the Saxon name itself comes from the Latin
word, if it's specific to Roman remains.
> >> Londinium and dozens, if not hundreds, of others, prove you wrong on
> >> this point. I might be more inclined to agree on the Brythonic though
> >
> > If there are hundreds, that is still very few compared to the numbers
> > of Germanic origin.
>
> Indeed, and French. I used to live near a village in Essex (near Epping
> Forest) called Theydon Bois (pronounced 'boys' by the locals, not 'bwa'
> as in French). but to say there are few Roman (or other) place names is
> erroneous IMO. I said hundreds, but it may well be thousands. I've never
> counted.
--
Alan Smaill
White Spirit
> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hf5ug5$f77$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> I wonder where they got the word "kirk" from when referring to a church
>>>> :-)
>>> I wonder why you think Germanic has much to do with present day German?
>> That's not what he said. 'Kirk' comes from Old Norse.
> I didn't say it was what he said.
So why did you ask him why he thinks that 'Germanic has much to do with
present day German'?
White Spirit
>> Leicester derives from 'Ligraceaster', which is Old English for the
>> town of the Liger tribe. 'Liger' is of indeterminate origin.
> The 'Liger', OK, the 'cester' is pure Roman.
No, it's from Old English 'ceaster'.
> Indeed, and French. I used to live near a village in Essex (near Epping
> Forest) called Theydon Bois (pronounced 'boys' by the locals, not 'bwa'
> as in French).
I've been there. I can't remember why I was there. It might have been
on the way back from Epping Forest.
> but to say there are few Roman (or other) place names is
> erroneous IMO. I said hundreds, but it may well be thousands. I've never
> counted.
Well, compared to the number of OE names, there are relatively few.
White Spirit
> castrum = camp, fort, I thought.
'Ceaster' is a cognate word but I'm not sure whether it derives from
Latin. I'll dig out my etymological dictionary when I have a chance.
> I see on
> http://www.localhistories.org/chester.html
> "The Saxons gave Chester its name.
> They called any group of Roman buildings a ceaster."
> This suggests the possibility that the Saxon name itself comes from the Latin
> word, if it's specific to Roman remains.
Possibly, as they didn't have walled towns before encountering Roman
towns. When fortified towns were developed under Alfred the great, the
word 'burh' (borough) was used.
White Spirit
> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hf67id$n77$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I lived in Scotland for two years and had plenty of opportunity to see him
>> in action on the news and political programmes when he still used to speak
>> his mind.
> You lie little one, (and I don't mean little in size).
> The official SNP line has always been that to hate the English will see you
> thrown out of the party. There are many examples of this but the most well
> known was the, "Seed of The Gael", (Siol nan Gaidheal), a group that were
> expelled years ago.
> Salmond, like most nationalists, has no hatred of the English and I've never
> heard him ever indicate in any way that he does. So you will excuse me if I
> call you a liar and demand you either provide a citation for your claims or
> retract them.
I thought he made it pretty obvious from his derisive tone and words,
even though it was not overt. You may, of course, beg to differ.
White Spirit
> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hf5unc$h78$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>
>>> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:hf5il3$8l1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Of course, your Scotch lowlands English is entirely Germanic in origin.
>>> Indeed it is, but that Germanic has little to do with what is now modern
>>> Germany.
>> Who brought Germany up?
>>> In fact Lowland Scots and modern English derive from the same roots.
>> Yes, the Northumbrian dialect of Old English.
> Rubbish! Northumbrian, just like the rest, was just another Germanic
> language.
No, it is a dialect of Old English. You know very little about Germanic
linguistics.
> Furthermore when it spoke that language it was not part of the
> England of those days. It was a sovereign kingdom in its own right.
Irrelevant.
>>> So to say that we all speak the same language is a bit of a myth.
>> Who said that we all speak the same language?
> You did claim the Scots was derived from Northumbrian and that Northumbrian
> was Old English, (which, incidentally was a misnomer).
Scots is derived from the Northumbrian dialect of OE, and no misnomer
about it. As I said, you know very little about Germanic linguistics.
White Spirit
> "White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hf5udl$f77$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>> I wouldn't know if it is a myth. Most Scots know the facts. The majority
>>> of the UK population are, and have always been Britons.
>> I believe the study that suggests this is flawed.
> What study wouldthat be, then?
Oppenheimer's.
> Considering I did not mention any specific study, I assume you are jumping
> to a wrong conclusion.
> There are many such studies and as time goes by the majority are now of the
> opinion that all of the British Isles are mainly genetically Ancient Britons
> with little impression being made by the Romans, Anglo Saxons, Normans but a
> little more being contributed by the Scandinavians but even that in the old
> Danelaw areas, Orkney, Shetland and the extreme North Coast.,
Oppenheimer's is the only one to make such bold claims.
FrereTuck
> Note: I wrote this some years ago. I shall be updating it over the next
> few months but its basic premise remains sound, namely, independence for
> Scotchland would spell disater for the Scotch children. . RH
>
> Don't make complete Celts of yourselves
>
> Robert Henderson
>
> The extent to which the Scots , the Welsh and Northern Irish
>
> Catholics actively wish to leave the UK is debatable. Their
>
> widespread resentment of England and all things English is
>
> not. In fact, things have come to such a pretty pass that to
>
> be English in any part of the UK other than England is to
>
> risk utterly gratuitous insult which ranges from the naked
>
> and vulgar abuse of the working classes to mean spirited
>
> bourgeois whining. Those who blithely dismiss anti-English
>
> Celtic feeling as being either the product of a small
>
> minority of political activists whose importance is unduly
>
> inflated by media attention or simply sporting chauvinism -
>
> implausible even by the dismal standards of liberal apologia
>
> - are either dullards or wilfully dishonest.
>
>
>
> Celtic antipathy might prove to be a transient and
>
> inconsequential matter were it not for Labour's reckless
>
> provision of assemblies for Scotland and Wales and Britain's
>
> membership of the ever growing Leviathan of the Europe Union.
>
> From the specious promise of these political phantasmagoria
>
> grow outlandish Celtic dreams of an independence liberally
>
> financed by foreigners. The time is more than ripe for a few
>
> hard truths to be placed before the would be Celtic
>
> separatists and home rulers.
>
>
>
> The hardest and most important truth is that England enjoys
>
> such a preponderance in population, wealth, educational
>
> opportunity, industry and commerce that it inevitably
>
> hugely dominates the other parts of Britain. Those Celts who
>
> imagine that England has exploited their countries in a
>
> peculiarly gratuitous, vicious and avaricious fashion should
>
> look at the general historical (and, indeed, present) fate of
>
> small countries faced with powerful neighbours. That general
>
> fate includes occupation by force, the reduction of
>
> conquered populations to a servile state, wholesale
>
> depredations, chronic legal disadvantages, the refusal of
>
> free trade - even with the occupying power, the absolute
>
> exclusion from government and, at the worst, genocide.
>
>
>
> Compare such behaviour with that of England's towards
>
> Scotland, Ireland and Wales for the past century and a half
>
> (at least). During that time all Celts have shared absolute
>
> legal equality with Englishmen, have enjoyed the immense
>
> benefits of free trade with England, had an inside track to
>
> the first industrial revolution, have been able to export
>
> their surplus populations to England, have received greater
>
> parliamentary representation than the English, have
>
> benefited - particularly since 1945 - from preferential
>
> government spending paid for by the English, and, most
>
> important for small peoples, have received the protection of
>
> the British state which would be nothing without England. In
>
> truth, it is a very long time since the English state
>
> behaved with gratuitous harshness or deliberate unfairness to
>
> even Ireland, despite the fact that Irish Fenians remain to
>
> this day a source of provocation which would bring condign
>
> punishment in most parts of the world as it is now and which
>
> would have guaranteed such punishment everywhere at any time
>
> in history prior to the nineteenth century. If Celts had an
>
> ounce of intellectual and emotional honesty they would
>
> stand amazed at England's moderation, not shout their
>
> unreasoning hatred or bleat imagined wrongs.
>
>
>
> The next unpalatable truth is that there is no guarantee
>
> that Britain or, in the event of a break-up of the UK,
>
> England, will remain within the EU or that the EU will exist
>
> either in its present form or at all in twenty years time.
>
> Moreover, the Celts belief that they may have an
>
> independence within the European Union which will provide
>
> subsidies to replace those currently given by England is,
>
> with the recent enlargement and prospective further
>
> enlargement of the EU, a fantasy of colossal proportions.
>
>
>
> What would be the consequences of a dissolution of Britain
>
> with England also removing itself from the foetid embrace of
>
> the EU? For England it is difficult to envisage any
>
> insuperable disadvantage, but easy to see definite and
>
> substantial advantages. She would be shorn of the burden of
>
> Celtic subsidies, both direct and indirect, while her very
>
> considerable population, wealth and general sophistication
>
> would ensure that she could maintain without any real
>
> difficulty the present levels of government provision from
>
> the welfare state to the military. Moreover, England would
>
> be able to act wholeheartedly in her own interests rather
>
> than constantly tailoring national decisions to take into
>
> account the demands of the Celts, who in all honestly,
>
> increasingly resemble a squadron of albatrosses around
>
> Albion's neck.
>
>
>
> The only important disadvantages for England could be balance
>
> of payments difficulties (primarily from the loss of oil, gas
>
> and whiskey production) and ructions in the international
>
> institutional sphere. Happily, adverse balances of trade
>
> are (eventually) self-correcting even if the correction, as
>
> is the case with America, can seem an age coming. Moreover,
>
> with the free global currency market and a floating pound, an
>
> adverse balance of trade does not hold the horrors it once
>
> did, for international borrowing is infinitely easier than it
>
> was even ten years past and devaluation of the currency is
>
> not viewed as a national humiliation. England might be
>
> temporarily embarrassed by a substantially increased trade
>
> deficit, but there is no reason to believe that it would be
>
> prolonged or seriously affect the English economy.
>
>
>
> As for international upheaval, it is conceivable that
>
> England would be unable to sustain a claim to Britain's
>
> privileged position on international bodies such as the UN
>
> Security Council and the board of IMF. However, this is
>
> unlikely for a number of reasons. To begin with there is the
>
> precedent of Russia which assumed all of the Soviet Union's
>
> international entitlements. Britain is also the United
>
> States' only halfway reliable ally on most of these
>
> international boards. To this may be added Britain's
>
> position as one of the larger international paymasters and
>
> providers of reliable military muscle. None of these facts
>
> need essentially change with the substitution of England for
>
> Britain. Perhaps most importantly, the denial to England of
>
> any of Britain's institutional places would pose the awkward
>
> question of who was to take any vacant position. This could
>
> (and almost certainly would) in turn raise the whole question
>
> of whether the constitutions of most world bodies are
>
> equitable or suited to the modern world. (The constitutions
>
> were after all created approximately fifty years ago and are
>
> in no sense equitable). To deny England could mean the
>
> opening of a can of worms. Conversely, it could be plausibly
>
> argued that membership of such international bodies
>
> represents a liability rather than an advantage and England
>
> would be well shot of them.
>
>
>
> But if England could contemplate independence without real
>
> qualms, the same can not be said for Wales, Ulster or even a
>
> Scotland with a right to oil and gas revenues. The sobering
>
> truth (or it should be one) for Celtic nationalists is that
>
> the Celtic provinces all produce a substantially smaller
>
> tax revenue per head than England. They also receive
>
> considerably more in direct government investment than
>
> England. This means that not only do the Celts have more
>
> spent upon them per head, they also make a lesser
>
> proportional contribution to those matters of national
>
> importance - the armed forces, diplomacy and so forth - than
>
> the English.
>
>
>
> To these easily quantifiable benefits may be added a
>
> disproportionate Celtic share of government subsidies to
>
> bribe firms into setting up factories on inappropriate sites
>
> and a large, perhaps disproportionate share, of public jobs
>
> financed by national government, Scotland, for example,
>
> administers much of England's social security, PAYE and
>
> schedule D tax and has a disproportionate number of army
>
> regiments; Wales plays host to the Vehicle Licensing Centre;
>
> Ulster contains the Short shipyard. On top of these publicly
>
> financed benefits may be placed the inestimable advantages
>
> of free trade with England and the assurance which being part
>
> of a prosperous and advanced nation state of fifty eight
>
> million gives foreign investors and companies.
>
>
>
> The truth is that none of the would be Celtic states, unlike
>
> England, would be large enough or rich enough to maintain
>
> government spending and services at anywhere near the
>
> current level. Moreover, the cost of their separate state
>
> administrations would almost certainly be proportionately
>
> substantially greater than that of England because of the
>
> loss of the advantages of scale. Nor for reasons already
>
> stated would they be likely to obtain the largesse currently
>
> handed out to the Republic of Ireland by the EU. Indeed, it
>
> is quite probable that all or some of them could be refused
>
> membership of the EU because of Germany's fear of incurring
>
> liabilities for more beggar nations.
>
>
> It is also reasonable to ask what would happen if an external
>
> military threat appeared. (Unlikely in the immediate future
>
> but not improbable over the next fifty years). Even if
>
> independent Celtic states were members of the EU, it is
>
> carrying optimism to the limit to imagine that they would
>
> receive active military help from that quarter. In the end
>
> they would have to turn to England for help.
>
>
>
> The Celts should also realise that an independent England
>
> could act, without infringing any of its general
>
> international obligations, in ways which would gravely
>
> disadvantage the Celts. It could impose passport regulations.
>
> It could refuse reciprocal social security and health
>
> provisions. It could insist upon work permits. Because the
>
> need for emigration is much greater in the Celtic parts of
>
> Britain than in England and the number of Celts on benefit in
>
> England vastly exceeds that of the English in Scotland,
>
> Wales and Ulster, such measures could be utterly calamitous
>
> for independent Celtic states.
>
>
>
> There is also the ticklish problem of the national debt. In
>
> the event of the independence of Scotland, Wales or Ulster,
>
> or the amalgamation of Ulster with the Irish Republic, a
>
> proportionate share (based on population) of the UK national
>
> debt would have to be born by a seceding part of the UK.
>
> Scotland's share, for example, would be currently in excess
>
> of 30 billion pounds; that of Wales approximately 15 billion.
>
> Even at current rates, the financing of the interest alone
>
> would cost between two and three billion a year.
>
>
> Ulster has a particular problem whether it remains
>
> independent or becomes submerged in a united Ireland. The
>
> removal of English subsidies alone would be a massive blow
>
> because they are of a different magnitude (when the
>
> expenditure of the armed forces in Ulster and special
>
> compensation payments for terrorist actions are taken into
>
> account) to those in Scotland and Wales. But if the EU
>
> refused to continue, either in whole or in part, subsidising
>
> the Republic of Ireland, Ulster would almost certainly have
>
> to bear a massive decline in Irish cross border trading.
>
>
>
> When it comes to paying their own way independent Celtic
>
> states would also have to consider the effect of confidence
>
> on their finances. If independent Celtic states were deemed
>
> to be poorer credit risks than Britain is now as a whole,
>
> which is probable, they would have to pay more for their
>
> future public and private borrowing in the form of higher
>
> interest rates. That would apply whether or not they were
>
> members of EMU, for a universal ECB bank rate does not mean
>
> that everyone can borrow at the same rate. A lender still has
>
> to believe that the borrower is worth the risk.
>
> Even if the most favourable conditions envisaged by Celtic
>
> Nationalists could be secured - essentially the same
>
> conditions currently enjoyed by the Republic of Ireland,
>
> Portugal etc - the omens would not be good. To begin with
>
> beggar nations within the EU can never be sure that the money
>
> will keep hitting the bottom of the begging bowl. To have an
>
> economy as dependent upon handouts as the Republic of
>
> Ireland's is simply courting disaster. Then there is the
>
> natural price to pay for such money, the supporting of the
>
> donor nations through thick and thin. This can, and often
>
> does mean, going against the direct interest of one's own
>
> people. (England - because it is from England rather than
>
> Britain that the EU Danegeld is extracted in practice - has
>
> the sovereign distinction of uniformly voting against the
>
> interests of its people and being the paymaster to the beggar
>
> nations). Nor should beggar nations be under any illusion
>
> that the EU will generally protect their interests in
>
> international disputes. The equation is quite clear: votes
>
> for money and to hell with the long term interests of the
>
> populations of the poorer EU states if these clash with the
>
> interests of the powerful.
>
>
>
> Looked at unsentimentally, the prospect for an independent
>
> Scotland, Wales or Ulster is one of poverty, a decayed
>
> welfare state, established companies moving across the border
>
> into England, foreign companies refusing to settle because of
>
> a lack of subsidies and the absence of the security of a
>
> large nation state, massive emigration of the middle classes
>
> and extreme levels of unemployment for those left behind.
>
>
>
> But what about the oil and gas? I can hear the Scots
>
> Nationalists positively screaming. Well, the current tax
>
> take, at less than 2 billion pounds, is relatively trivial in
>
> terms of the revenue an independent Scotland would require.
>
> (It would barely finance their share of the national debt at
>
> current interest rates). Moreover, not all oil is in
>
> Scottish waters. Further, even the revenues from oil within
>
> Scots waters might be claimed in part by both the various
>
> islanders, who fear Scots rule, and England (on the grounds
>
> that because the project was started when Britain was a
>
> unitary state, the rewards should continue to be split
>
> proportionately according to the new states' various
>
> populations). There are also the unfortunate facts that
>
> British oil is very expensive to produce and may well become
>
> uncompetitive as countries such as China expand production or
>
> other forms of energy become cheaper, and, more definitely,
>
> oil extraction at its present level is unlikely to last for
>
> more than another generation. Oil and gas production revenues
>
> would be a poor pair of crutches to prop up an impoverished
>
> independent Scotland.
>
>
>
> In seeking independence or a large measure of home rule,
>
> Celts risk rousing a sleeping giant, English nationalism. By
>
> offering even limited devolution to Scotland and Wales the
>
> Labour Party will almost certainly create the desire for an
>
> English parliament. The natural outcome of such a splitting
>
> of political responsibilities will be the growth of a
>
> resentment by the English of the subsidies currently given to
>
> the Celts. From such a resentment will come a desire within
>
> England for each country within Britain to finance both the
>
> cost of home rule and a proportionate share of general
>
> charges such as defence and the servicing of the national
>
> debt. From that point it is but a single stride for any of
>
> the constituent parts of the UK to full independence, the
>
> sloughing off of the emotional bonds which have bound Britain
>
> together by a declaration of independence. What the Celts
>
> cannot reasonably expect to have for very long is home rule
>
> financed by England, for that would be having your political
>
> cake and eating it.
>
>
>
> Celts should keep ever before them one salutary possibility.
>
> They may find the independence decision taken out of their
>
> hands for the English, if constantly insulted and traduced,
>
> could decide to declare their independence. Think long and
>
> hard, you Scots , Welsh and Catholic Irish, before
>
> attempting to making complete Celts of yourselves.
>
> ?
not one of the Loegrians did not become Saxons... except those in....
Think thats from Hergest or One of Mabignion or someat...
so what do you think you are Mr. Henderson with your 'Pictish' name?
I think British is Good enough, lets face it, lots of Kings of Albion,
even Saxon Kings amongst themselves, didn't get along.
Robert Peffers
>
>>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>
>>>> You have to wonder at the English education system. The whole history
>>>> of the country is one of being defeated by invaders.
>
>>> A gross distortion of the facts. English history starts with the
>>> Anglo-Saxon invasions, the subsequent invasions being the Danish
>>> invasions, which were eventually repelled, and the Norman Conquest. It
>>> remains to be seen how complete the current immigration invasion will
>>> be.
>
>> Actually we are not debating English history but we are about who the
>> English are descended from.
>
> And you think that history has nothing to do with demonstrating who we are
> descended from?
Yes, of course, has it not occured to you that genetics tells us who we are
descended from by birth but all history, assuming it is true, tells us is
who we are culturally descended from
Then, of course, we can change our culture by adopting another, but we
cannot change our true bloodline.
You want examples?
The Australians, (not the Aborigines), are mainly descended from the British
but have their own culture. As have the New Zealanders.
Here is another, The Scots were descended from more than one source but
became a unified nation and have slowly adopted a unified culture. When I
was a boy a Lowland Scot would never wear a kilt and there were many
cultural differences between Highlanders and Lowlanders - now they all wear
kilts for weddings and such like.
Nations unite into a distinct culture but our genetic makeup is fixed
forever.
I went to school in a thriving docks area and there were all sorts in that
school. Yet every one of them, colour and creed excepted, were as Scottish
as I am.
>
>> The fact that there was no such place as England has little to do with
>> the people who lived in southern Britain in the beginning.
>
> The term 'Englalond' had been in long use by around 700AD.
Indeed it had but it did not cover what it covers today
>
>>>> So let's just examine this for a moment - The original southern Britons
>>>> were invaded by the Romans, who ruled from around AD 43 to AD 410, and
>>>> these Romans ruled, (note: It was not then England), southern Britain.
>>>> Now it is important to remember the Roman troops were from all over the
>>>> Roman Empire but their bosses were high ranking Romans. Yet the modern
>>>> English do not seem to think that they are descended from either the
>>>> Roman troops or the Roman rulers. I wonder why?
>
>>> Because we are not.
>
>> That is just what I said.
>> But then you are not Anglo Saxon either.
>> Neither are you Normans, or anything else for that matter.
>
> You are incorrect.
Your genes say what you are genetically and that is just the same as the
rest of the UK with just a little difference around the extreme edges.
What yopu are culturally is another matter
>
>>>> Anyway, the Romans left and the residents of Southern Britain were
>>>> totally unable to run their country by themselves, nor were they
>>>> trained to defend themselves after nearly 370 years of Roman
>>>> occupation. So they nipped across the channel and engaged the war-like
>>>> Angles, Jutes, Saxons and Franks as mercenaries to fight for them.
>
>>> It's highly unlikely that the Franks were involved, but evidence
>>> suggests that very many Frisians were.
>
>> Very debatable and also not important as you are not descended from them
>> anyway.
>
> So you say.
So says the overwhellming number of genetic scientists.
>
>>>> They made this an attractive deal for these with the offer of free
>>>> land. The incomers did come but after a short spell they realised the
>>>> natives were there for the taking and they just took over and ran the
>>>> country. The same thing happened with the Normans
>
>>> The Norman Conquest was not of the same nature. There were relatively
>>> few Normans and they simply replaced the ruling classes. This did not
>>> happen with the Anglo Saxon invasion, a complete invasion that took
>>> place in successive waves.
>
>> Not true. Please cite evidence for that claim?
>
> Firstly, let's consider archaeology of place names and linguistic
> evidence.
Oh! Come now, Place names are a Red Herring and depend upon the language
spoken by whoever named a place in the beginning.
I live in a village with a Gaelic name and I only know one single Gaelic
speaker in the entire village.
> Aside from Cornwall, very few Roman and Brythonic place names exist.
> This is good evidence that the Germanic tribes barely mingled with the
> Brythonic inhabitants.
> Compare that to Ireland where, although English is now their first
> language, the overwhelming majority of their place names have Celtic
> origin. Given that we know that a Celtic language was spoken in England
> (or southern Britain, if you prefer) before the arrival of the Germanic
> tribes and that a Germanic language generally referred to as Anglo Saxon
> or Old English became dominant thereafter, it is absurd to believe that
> the tiny numbers of people you allege could see their language become
> dominant in such a short space of time.
Not true once more.
I am a Lowland Scots speaker and have spoken that language all my life.
However, our village is undergoing great changes over the last few years and
new housing schemes are built or building.
The builders name the streets and most of these builders are English based
companies.
The older village street names are derived from the different farm steadings
that were there before and until now the newer Scottish company builders
gave the newer streets these same old farm names.
The newest stuff, built by English companies, though has names like, "Seefar
Drive".
> Furthermore, English place names were named when the Germanic tribes
> established settlements. In other words, they did not live in Brythonic
> settlements. There are no recorded examples of people living within the
> Anglo Saxon kingdoms giving their children Brythonic names. The two
> peoples simply did not mix and for Anglo Saxons to have been completely
> dominant in the way they were, they must have had superiority of numbers.
Rather a sweeping statement there - if the rulers were running the place
then the rulers would be the ones who named the place, and even more to the
point, it was the rulers who recorded the names and not the natives.
It is a bit like how the Romans, even although they never really concured
the most northern Britons, dubbed them all with the generic term, "The
Picts". So what of the actual names used by the natives themselves?
They did not have a written languge, so what were their names for
themselves?.
>
> The archaeology of material culture shows a similar discontinuity. Anglo
> Saxons lived in different style houses, had difference styles of dress,
> used different jewellery, different weapons, different funerary rites,
> different units of measurement (with the exception of the mile) etc.
> Their religion was very different as was their society and military
> organisation. There is little or no influence from the early
> Romano-British culture on Anglo Saxon culture. In order to replace a
> culture and language within such a short space of time, the people must
> have been replaced.
Err! Did you not read what I said in the beginning?
The invited Anglo Saxons came by request with a promise of good farming
land.
They kept themselves to themselves until they realised that they were not
only the defenders of the land but could just run it to suit themselves.
Ergo - a ruling elite who wanted no part of being either absorbed by the
natives nor absorbing them.
Why would they need to?
They were given land freely, they were running the place and probably
thought of the natives as a rable who were there to serve them.
That was what the Romand did before them.
There just is no evidence to support antything else.
That is the way of elite rulers. The Romans, The British in India, Africa
and the Americas.
They just do not mesh in with the natives.
The genetics tell the truth. What is more history tells us that half casts
are not accepted by either the elite or the natives.
>
>> The writings claimeng such invasions and waves were written a very long
>> time after the event and can be shown to be bunk.
>
> No, they cannot be demonstrated to be bunk.
They can and are.
If they were correct the genes would show it but they don't.
>
>>>> and even in some parts by the Vikings and Norsemen.
>>> The Norsemen visited Scotland. England was invaded by Danes.
>
>> Definf England at the time of these invasions?
>
> The area comprising the Anglo Saxon kingdoms. Referring to it as
> 'England' is convenient even though the geography is not precisely that of
> modern day England.
Not by a long shot, though.
>
>>>> Yet of all these invaders the modern English think that they are
>>>> descendants of only the Angles & Saxons.
>
>>> Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians with a significant Danish
>>> contribution and, to a small extent, Norman/Frankish.
>
>> No! Sorry! The genetic evidence is that there is less than 5% Anglo Saxon
>> in the modern English
>> The invaders obviously did not generally interbreed with the natives and
>> the 5% actually is for the entire UK.
>
> That study is flawed and reliable evidence suggests that this cannot be
> the case.
Again, What study are you talking about?
I'm talking about a great many studies but which one do you mean?
>
>>>> Now for the real truth - modern science has proved beyond all doubt
>>>> that while all these invaders, as is the way of invaders, did have a
>>>> bit of nooky with the natives, the general trend was to keep themselves
>>>> as an elite ruling class and to not, generally, interbreed with the
>>>> southern Britons.
>
>>> Not so. For the Anglo Saxon invasions, the linguistic evidence,
>>> archaeological record and examination of written literature suggests
>>> that the native inhabitants the Germanic tribes supplanted were wiped
>>> out utterly in England (barring Cornwall).
>
>> Utter rubbish and the supporting evidence, "The Ecclesiastical History of
>> the English People", was written in Latin as the Historia ecclesiastica
>> gentis Anglorum by Bede. It was written around 731, and comprises of 400
>> pages. It is divided into 5 books which covers the ecclesiastical and
>> political history of England from the time of Julius Caesar to its
>> completion in around AD731. So the Romans came and went a long time
>> before Bede and his, "History", is mostly utter bunk.
>
> I'm not referring to Bede's history. I have given good evidence above.
Sorry but you have not.
Quite simply the ones who record a placename are the rulers and the locals
could have used something else.
What you show is only the name recorded by the elite rulers.
Your other evidence bears out my vesrion, the rulers were an elite who did
not interbreed with the locals.
>
>>>> The facts are that less than 5% of the modern English carry Anglo Saxon
>>>> genes, (and that only in some areas).
>
>>> The fact is that we simply do not know because the scientific methods
>>> are incomplete. The studies often contradict each other, with one study
>>> suggesting a common Iberian genetic footprint with another suggesting no
>>> genetic difference between England and Denmark/Frisia and a marked
>>> genetic difference between England and the 'Celtic' areas.
>
>> So just what are you designating as, "England", bearing in mind what was
>> England when the Anglo Saxons were in charge of, "Angleland"?
>
> I have explained above.
You gave no speific area.
>
>> Also, what are you designating as, "Celtic", bearing in mind that the
>> Romans named a host of Northern British tribes as, "Picts"?
>
> The Romano-British inhabitants before the Anglo Saxon invasions.
These were not much above Hadrian's wall and even less beyond the Gask Road.
You are confusing Roman Britain with the British Isles.
>
>> Not any more are there lots of boubts. The more recent studies have
>> improved as the science has improved.
>
> No, it's still a mess upon which no one in their right mind would rely.
Then why not give a cite to prove your point and I will cite many more that
say otherwise.
Here are a couple of names
Stephen Oppenheimer
Bradshaw Foundation
>
>>>> The modern English are thus 95% Britons like the rest of us. What is
>>>> even more laughable is that these numpties have the strange idea that
>>>> everyone in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and the English West country are
>>>> Celts.
>
>>> Actually, it seems that Scotland is significantly English. Amusingly,
>>> the language you refer to as 'Scots' is a direct descendant of the
>>> Northumbrian dialect of Old English.
>
>> Don't talk utter rubbish - That Nothumbrian language you speak of was
>> spoken in a different and sovereign kingdom of Northumbria. Northumbria
>> was thus NOT a part of England at that time. Neither were lots of other
>> kingdoms such as Mercia.
>
> Northumbrian is a dialect of Old English. Linguists and other scholars
> agree on that. I don't know why you don't.
Because it proves nothing.
Old English is the basis for Middle English, Scots, Northumbrian, Dutch,
Scandanavian, Ulster Scots in Britain..
These in turn are all Germanic languages.
The Germanic languages form one of the branches of the Indo-European
language family.-
They include -
English,
German,
Dutch
Afrikaans
Danish
Norwegian
Swedish
Icelandic
Lowland Scots.
but there are 57 listed languaes quoted as Germanic in origin.
It is silly to claim that Old Scots and Old English are anything other than
from the same Germanic roots.
>
>> Furthermore what is described as old English was a very long way from
>> Middle English
>
> Actually, there was a slow transition. Middle English seems to have
> broken down into various dialects.
>
>> and even further from Modern English.
>
> Yes, it's called language drift.
>
>> The facts are that Lowland Scots, and English, and for that matter
>> Northumbrian, were all derived from the common Germanic language
>
> Correct so far.
>
>> that was the common root for almost all European, and many other, World
>> languages.
>
> Incorrect here. The parent language you are thinking of is Indo-European.
No I was not.
The Germanic languages, (about 57 of them), are all rerived from the Low,
middle & high German
These are all just a part of the Indo-European group.
My reference is that the Germanic eventually gave us the modern languages
for most of Europe, Australasia and North America.
>
>>>> The genes prove them wrong and so does a little common sense use while
>>>> reading history.
>
>>> The genes prove nothing so far and where common sense is concerned, the
>>> linguistic and archaeological records are far more reliable than a
>>> gaggle of geneticists pioneering techniques and claiming conclusions
>>> that don't reconcile with one another.
>
>> Rubbish!
>> Your linguistics claims show this to be true. You have utterly no concept
>> of how things were back then.
>
> Sorry, old chap, but I studied this at university. The same university
> that conducts genetic studies into the same, in fact.
>
>> You attempt to show that Lowland Scots is actually English
>
> It is.
>
>> by saying it is derived from Northumbrian,
>
> It is.
>
>> in itself that is rubbish as the Brythonic language was in force from the
>> south of Britain right up to the Strathclyde area of Scotland.
>
> It wasn't after the Anglo Saxon invasions.
>
>> Then the simple fact that Northumbria was not then part of England but a
>> kingdom on its own shoots that daft claim down.
>
> The political history is neither here nor there. I'm using standard
> linguistic definitions that are not in doubt by anyone except you it would
> seem.
>
>> The only correct way to see this matter is that these languages all come
>> from a common Germanic root
>
> They come from a common root, of course, but linguists like to narrow
> things down and the fact is that Scots is derived from Northumbrian
>
>> but that root is NOT any closer to modern German than Modern English is.
>
> Who said anything about modern German?
>
>> That is what I meant by the application of a little common sense.
>
> You could do with acquiring some sound knowledge, never mind common sense.
Let me just point out a couple of errors in your logic.
The first is your lumping together Old English, Middle English and modern
English.
Then there is that little matter of Northumbria and your assumption that it
was England.
In fact at first Northumbria was a kingdom on its own.
It then had a spell being disputed as either Scottish or English.
Then it was agreed it was English, but this came long after the Lowland
Scots language had gone quite some way from the old Northumbrian.
In fact it is on record that Queen Elizabeth I listed among the many
languages she was fluent in both Scots & English.
There is a marked difference between the English written by QEI and Jamie
Saxt's Scots.
So while no one disputes that Old Scots derived manly from Northumbrian
what is disputed is that that language was the same as the English further
south.
If memory serves the English language did not become standardised until the
invention of the printing press and William Shakespeare broadened the need
for a more standardised version. For the life of me I cannot remember which
particular area gave most to the standardised English but something tells me
it was not that of the southern bits.
Farmer Giles
Altogether everyone: ooh, the irony!
Farmer Giles
But you claimed she was a Scot before anyone else claimed any nationality
for anyone - also that Prince Philip was Greek (something you appear to have
gone strangely quiet about). I refuted your claim with the FACT that she was
born in England to an English mother. Now please tell me why you claimed
that she was Scottish?
> You obviously don't know that ALL people born in the United Kingdom have
> been registered as British since the two respective Acts Of Union in 1707.
> That is the law. The only organisations that attempted to classify people
> to different UK countries were the National sporting associations and they
> hardly got it right by making place of birth the yardstick and even these
> have changed their stance years ago.
Doesn't seem to have stopped you making frequent and specious claims about
certain individuals being Scottish, when they are not regarded by others as
Scots! I remember you once stomping into a thread when someone applauded Jim
Davidson, for something or other, to loudly claim him as one of your
compatriots. JD was Born in London to an Irish mother - and I gather that
who exactly his father was is a matter of some dispute - so I'm not sure how
you worked that one out either - and you never did explain!
That was why we had two Scottish
> footballing brothers born to two Scottish parents who, the brothers, never
> played for Scotland. One was Joe Baker and the other his brother Jerry.
> Their father was a soldier and Joe was born in England while Gerry was
> born in the USA. I haven't seen Jerry for years but Joe is as Scottish as
> I am. So once more you are talking rubbish.
Ooh, the irony!
> The thing is that we belong to whichever UK country we choose to claim as
> our own while our birth certificate says we are all British but does state
> our place of birth.
> --
Perhaps you ought to stop making so many wild claims then!
Robert Peffers
The rulers name the places and it is they who record the place names. If the
locals had another name it just would not be on record.
Think of the Scottish Highlands and the Gaelic names used by the locals. The
thing is most are marked on maps with English names, (although not so much
these days). Another thing that Scotland shows is how a couple of languages
can be proscribed almost out of existence as both Lowland Scots and Scots
Gaelic were. Do you think for a moment these things were not happening in
England under various occupations?
--
Auld Bob
Paul C
<wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
>Paul C wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:14:36 +0000, White Spirit
>> <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> My opinion on Scottish independence has nothing to do with hate. I'd
>>> welcome such a change as I don't see any good reason for us to subsidise
>>> people who seem to resent us.
>
>> Your country subsidises no one. Your country is in fiscal deficit.
>
>Thanks to which Scottish bank?
>
>You put your foot right in it.
Thanks to no Scottish bank. Your country was in fiscal deficit in the
years before Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley and Halifax BoS, and it
continues to be in deficit.
FrereTuck
I mean, myself, an English person, love my Scottish and Welsh Brethren
and Sistren... cant understand a f@ckin' word they are sayin' but... :)
Robert Henderson
Giles <Gi...@nospam.com> writes
>
>
>'They' clearly didn't teach you very much, old Thickers.
His most hilarious error recently was when he claimed that it was Scotch
law not English law which was the source of the Common Law. Scotch law
is of course a development of Roman Law. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Paul C
<wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
.
>
>I lived in Scotland for two years and had plenty of opportunity to see
>him in action on the news and political programmes when he still used to
>speak his mind.
Give us all just one example of his hatred of the English.
Paul C
Give us one example of his derisive words.
Paul C
you must find it difficult listening to them speaking a language which
has been preserved from the mangling given to old English by the
English - changing good old English words like 'stane' to 'stone',
'hame' to 'home, 'coo' to 'cow' Quite how the English managed to come
up with 'lore' for 'law', droring' for 'drawing', 'wales' for
'whales' and 'wen' for 'when' is, however, beyond me.