Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Palindrome wrote:
Which is exactly what happend to the Welsh.

England has had a number of outside forces invade and change our leaders and political makeup over history; as has been mentioned in this thread already, our royal family have ties to most of europe and there have been complete disconnects at certain times in history between ruling families.

I don't recall there being a particular hatred in the UK against the Italians for taking over large chunks of England and Wales, or the Scandinavians for invading and setting up camp all along our coast, especially the north and generally taking over much of the country. Hell, I don't hear that much about the French, our "most hated ally" who we have been at war with on and off again with for a large part of our history.

Other parts of the UK who used to be autonomous and whose historical rulers were completely displaced by the British monarchy would also be entitles to complain.

How far back to you want to go when considering what exactly the "British monarchy" is? Pretty much every town or region used to be its own little kingdom once upon a time. As I said, you hear rumblings from the Cornish but that is about it. Most of this stuff happened so long ago, why hold a grudge?

As a republican I really don't care but some people obviously think that its important.

I'm not really that bothered about whether people want to continue on with the royals heading the country or not, however, I don't really understand the hate for them based on some people hundreds of years ago not being very nice to some other people. Hell, in those days if the Welsh had been stronger and the English weaker, I am sure those Welsh kings and queens would have been the first ones over the boarder to kick bottom and take titles.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Other parts of the UK who used to be autonomous and whose historical rulers were completely displaced by the British monarchy would also be entitles to complain.

How far back to you want to go when considering what exactly the "British monarchy" is? Pretty much every town or region used to be its own little kingdom once upon a time. As I said, you hear rumblings from the Cornish but that is about it. Most of this stuff happened so long ago, why hold a grudge?

As a Cornishman, I'll tell you this. We don't want to be independent, we don't want to ever stop being British. We just want the recognition currently afforded to the Welsh, Scots, Ulsterians, hell even the Manx. We want a border drawn on the map and a different colour used to indicate Cornwall, just as there used to be up until a few hundred years back, because we are not English and not Anglo Saxon. We are not English, we are a celtic people.

As to why there are grudges, it's ingrained. Until about 200 years ago, the Cornish had their own language which was then made illegal and only English taught in schools. In the 15th century, 1 in 10 people in Cornwall died due to violence by the English armies enforcing tax laws, that's not 1 in 10 fighting men, that's 1 in 10 people of all ages. Entire villages were blocked off and starved for resisting the crippling taxes. This culminated in the battle of Deptford Bridge when 20,000 Cornishmen marched peacefully to London to protest and were massacred by two armies Henry VII had been building to march on Scotland. The Cornish were led by a blacksmith, An Gof, and made up of fishermen, miners and farmers who were being broken by the taxes levied at them to fund the wars in Scotland.

After this march was broken, it's leaders executed, the taxes were increased yet further and the Cornish persecuted further with starvation, poverty and draconian punishment. This was continued for centuries. Whilst many of my English friends will say 'it all happened so long ago, why hold a grudge?' or 'It's not really important is it?', I can say that no, I hold not a single bit of dislike for my English brothers or sisters, but I want my people recognised again, because we are culturally different to them and the absolute assimilation we had placed on us, that the English could not perform with the other Celtic nations due to geography or size, is an insult to our individuality and spirit. It all happened a long time ago, but ask yourself if you could ignore the call of your ancestors or the knowledge you were growing up in a 'quietly occupied' country who's millennia-old (we were trading tin with the Phoenicians when Rome was a collection of mud huts on a hill) culture has been whitewashed over and removed from history.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Other parts of the UK who used to be autonomous and whose historical rulers were completely displaced by the British monarchy would also be entitles to complain.

How far back to you want to go when considering what exactly the "British monarchy" is? Pretty much every town or region used to be its own little kingdom once upon a time. As I said, you hear rumblings from the Cornish but that is about it. Most of this stuff happened so long ago, why hold a grudge?

As a Cornishman, I'll tell you this. We don't want to be independent, we don't want to ever stop being British. We just want the recognition currently afforded to the Welsh, Scots, Ulsterians, hell even the Manx. We want a border drawn on the map and a different colour used to indicate Cornwall, just as there used to be up until a few hundred years back, because we are not English and not Anglo Saxon. We are not English, we are a celtic people.

As to why there are grudges, it's ingrained. Until about 200 years ago, the Cornish had their own language which was then made illegal and only English taught in schools. In the 15th century, 1 in 10 people in Cornwall died due to violence by the English armies enforcing tax laws, that's not 1 in 10 fighting men, that's 1 in 10 people of all ages. Entire villages were blocked off and starved for resisting the crippling taxes. This culminated in the battle of Deptford Bridge when 20,000 Cornishmen marched peacefully to London to protest and were massacred by two armies Henry VII had been building to march on Scotland. The Cornish were led by a blacksmith, An Gof, and made up of fishermen, miners and farmers who were being broken by the taxes levied at them to fund the wars in Scotland.

After this march was broken, it's leaders executed, the taxes were increased yet further and the Cornish persecuted further with starvation, poverty and draconian punishment. This was continued for centuries. Whilst many of my English friends will say 'it all happened so long ago, why hold a grudge?' or 'It's not really important is it?', I can say that no, I hold not a single bit of dislike for my English brothers or sisters, but I want my people recognised again, because we are culturally different to them and the absolute assimilation we had placed on us, that the English could not perform with the other Celtic nations due to geography or size, is an insult to our individuality and spirit. It all happened a long time ago, but ask yourself if you could ignore the call of your ancestors or the knowledge you were growing up in a 'quietly occupied' country who's millennia-old (we were trading tin with the Phoenicians when Rome was a collection of mud huts on a hill) culture has been whitewashed over and removed from history.

That's beautiful. It really is.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
After this march was broken, it's leaders executed, the taxes were increased yet further and the Cornish persecuted further with starvation, poverty and draconian punishment. This was continued for centuries. Whilst many of my English friends will say 'it all happened so long ago, why hold a grudge?' or 'It's not really important is it?', I can say that no, I hold not a single bit of dislike for my English brothers or sisters, but I want my people recognised again, because we are culturally different to them and the absolute assimilation we had placed on us, that the English could not perform with the other Celtic nations due to geography or size, is an insult to our individuality and spirit. It all happened a long time ago, but ask yourself if you could ignore the call of your ancestors or the knowledge you were growing up in a 'quietly occupied' country who's millennia-old (we were trading tin with the Phoenicians when Rome was a collection of mud huts on a hill) culture has been whitewashed over and removed from history.

I recognise that certain areas had it rougher than others in terms of being brought into the fold, but is there anything much to distinguish Cornwall today from anywhere else in the UK (other than perhaps better weather and pastries) now that would require them essentially being marked out as a seperate country? And is there any prticular reasion other than some general "recognition"? It is a genuine question - I'm not attempting to mock or anything like that so forgive me if it comes across as anything other than a request for your insight.

You say yourself that the vast majority of the culture, language and so on has essentially passed into history (remembered or otherwise). I guess in some ways it would be simmilar (in my mind anyway - can't say I have given the issue much thought so may be speaking rubbish) to someone in the US who cares more about states rights than the union... except that they wanted a return of British/French/Spanish/etc rule in whatever place they lived in. Or people in the North of England wanting to go back to speaking whatever variation of Scandinavian the vikings spoke and cutting all ties with the current government.

Well it's always good to revive your ancient cultures. I wish Gaelic was more widely spoken and that I could speak it.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
After this march was broken, it's leaders executed, the taxes were increased yet further and the Cornish persecuted further with starvation, poverty and draconian punishment. This was continued for centuries. Whilst many of my English friends will say 'it all happened so long ago, why hold a grudge?' or 'It's not really important is it?', I can say that no, I hold not a single bit of dislike for my English brothers or sisters, but I want my people recognised again, because we are culturally different to them and the absolute assimilation we had placed on us, that the English could not perform with the other Celtic nations due to geography or size, is an insult to our individuality and spirit. It all happened a long time ago, but ask yourself if you could ignore the call of your ancestors or the knowledge you were growing up in a 'quietly occupied' country who's millennia-old (we were trading tin with the Phoenicians when Rome was a collection of mud huts on a hill) culture has been whitewashed over and removed from history.

I recognise that certain areas had it rougher than others in terms of being brought into the fold, but is there anything much to distinguish Cornwall today from anywhere else in the UK (other than perhaps better weather and pastries) now that would require them essentially being marked out as a seperate country? And is there any prticular reasion other than some general "recognition"? It is a genuine question - I'm not attempting to mock or anything like that so forgive me if it comes across as anything other than a request for your insight.

You say yourself that the vast majority of the culture, language and so on has essentially passed into history (remembered or otherwise). I guess in some ways it would be simmilar (in my mind anyway - can't say I have given the issue much thought so may be speaking rubbish) to someone in the US who cares more about states rights than the union... except that they wanted a return of British/French/Spanish/etc rule in whatever place they lived in. Or people in the North of England wanting to go back to speaking whatever variation of Scandinavian the vikings spoke and cutting all ties with the current government.

Well, it's a question I've asked myself and I guess it comes down to some simple things. How would you feel knowing that in about four or five generations, 'Britishness' would cease to exist and these isles would simple be 'Western European Zone 5' and your descendants would all be speaking German. How does that make you feel? No 'keep calm and...', no 'cup of tea', no 'Rule Britannia', no 'daleks', no 'Fools and Horses', no 'English language', no 'Battle of Hastings', no 'Finest Hour', no 'Queen and Country', no 'BBC World Service', no 'Green and Pleasant Land', no 'Rugby', no 'Trooping the Colours', no Britain, no England, no Scotland, no Wales, no Ulster... I think it would break my heart. How would you feel about your children's children's children wanting the Island called Britain again and being marked on the map to remember her thousands of years of history and hundreds of years dominating the face of the earth from just a small rainy island and being told 'what does it matter?' 'Is there anything much to remember about it that's really that worthwhile?'.

The Celtic peoples have a distinct identity as the 'first' peoples of the islands, we were here before the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, the Norse, the Normans or any of the significant incursions that followed and in Cornwall, Wales and the rest of the celtic fringe nations, there is a belief that we have remained peoples apart from the changing English. We Cornish have a Stannary Council, recognised at one time by the crown of England as separate.

I understand it's difficult for the average English person to 'get it' as to you, we are another county, like Wiltshire or Surrey, but growing up Cornish is to be a nation apart from England and many of my English friends have said that there really is a difference staying or living in Cornwall akin to visiting Ireland or Wales, to the mindset and atmosphere. Some Cornish go in for the same thing the Welsh can be guilty of, getting closed off and hostile, I don't believe for a second in that as history has always recognised the Cornish for being excellent and welcoming hosts. I just want us recognised on the map as different, we were here for thousands of years before the English in their various incarnations, arrived and I'd like that to be shown and our history and rich culture and folklore brought back. I want us to work together with the English and the rest of our Celtic nations brothers in the British Isles and I've knocked another Cornishman to the ground for speaking out of turn to an English lass, but I am not English, my father is not English, my Grandfather is not English and none of my ancestors have ever been English, no matter what some buggers have changed on the map.

We were quietly assimilated, we had an ancient history erased, we had our cultural identity 'reformed' by people who are not our people. This happened some centuries ago yes, but ask a Sioux National about keeping their culture alive, or an Ainu, or any number of tribes from Papua New Guinea, if their way of life should be kept alive or just consumed by the intruding culture around them. Ask a Maori if they identify as a New Zealander or Maori first? I am a Cornishman, a Celt and a proud citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and I am not English...

I would liken Cornwall to say the Basque, Breton (Another Celtic culture), or Catalonia.
They appear no more than another provincial area to some people but to the people than live there and that were raised there it is a very distinct identity away from the overall national identity with things such as meals, languages and in some places national dress.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Well, it's a question I've asked myself and I guess it comes down to some simple things. How would you feel knowing that in about four or five generations, 'Britishness' would cease to exist and these isles would simple be 'Western European Zone 5' and your descendants would all be speaking German. How does that make you feel? No 'keep calm and...', no 'cup of tea', no 'Rule Britannia', no 'daleks', no 'Fools and Horses', no 'English language', no 'Battle of Hastings', no 'Finest Hour', no 'Queen and Country', no 'BBC World Service', no 'Green and Pleasant Land', no 'Rugby', no 'Trooping the Colours', no Britain, no England, no Scotland, no Wales, no Ulster... I think it would break my heart. How would you feel about your children's children's children wanting the Island called Britain again and being marked on the map to remember her thousands of years of history and hundreds of years dominating the face of the earth from just a small rainy island and being told 'what does it matter?' 'Is there anything much to remember about it that's really that worthwhile?'.

The Celtic peoples have a distinct identity as the 'first' peoples of the islands, we were here before the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, the Norse, the Normans or any of the significant incursions that followed and in Cornwall, Wales and the rest of the celtic fringe nations, there is a belief that we have remained peoples apart from the changing English. We Cornish have a Stannary Council, recognised at one time by the crown of England as separate.

I understand it's difficult for the average English person to 'get it' as to you, we are another county, like Wiltshire or Surrey, but growing up Cornish is to be a nation apart from England and many of my English friends have said that there really is a difference staying or living in Cornwall akin to visiting Ireland or Wales, to the mindset and atmosphere. Some Cornish go in for the same thing the Welsh can be guilty of, getting closed off and hostile, I don't believe for a second in that as history has always recognised the Cornish for being excellent and welcoming hosts. I just want us recognised on the map as different, we were here for thousands of years before the English in their various incarnations, arrived and I'd like that to be shown and our history and rich culture and folklore brought back. I want us to work together with the English and the rest of our Celtic nations brothers in the British Isles and I've knocked another Cornishman to the ground for speaking out of turn to an English lass, but I am not English, my father is not English, my Grandfather is not English and none of my ancestors have ever been English, no matter what some buggers have changed on the map.

We were quietly assimilated, we had an ancient history erased, we had our cultural identity 'reformed' by people who are not our people. This happened some centuries ago yes, but ask a Sioux National about keeping their culture alive, or an Ainu, or any number of tribes from Papua New Guinea, if their way of life should be kept alive or just consumed by the intruding culture around them. Ask a Maori if they identify as a New Zealander or Maori first? I am a Cornishman, a Celt and a proud citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and I am not English...

You raise some exellent points MGS.

I would add that the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people, though I use both terms fairly loosely, as 'celtic' is something that we have applied to Brythonic peoples retrospectively, and 'English' is the product of acculturation between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Genetically, we're pretty much identical to the rest of our British/Irish brothers and sisters, as the genetic impact of the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans and particularly the Romans is often massively over-estimated (there have been genetic studies) by most people. The effect was more of a cultural one. It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.

I think many Americans might be looking at this discussion and thinking it is kind of weird. We (Americans) do identify somewhat by the state we live in, but I have never seen it expressed to such a level. Unless you live in Texas of course.

But I can relate to is from my German side. We (Germans) have very strong ties to our cultural heritage and often claim our regional self before our national self. You are more likely to see city and county flags before state flags of even national flags in some areas. For me I consider myself Franconian first, Bavarian second, and German third. But I don't have that kind of divide for my American self.

 Albatross wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.

Well, no. Gaelic is spoken by the Irish. The Welsh speak Welsh. The ancient Scots and Picts had their own languages. The Cornish spoke Cornish. Related to Welsh, I think? But did I miss somewhere where someone said all Celts spoke Gaelic?

 Albatross wrote:
I would add that the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people, though I use both terms fairly loosely, as 'celtic' is something that we have applied to Brythonic peoples retrospectively, and 'English' is the product of acculturation between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Genetically, we're pretty much identical to the rest of our British/Irish brothers and sisters, as the genetic impact of the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans and particularly the Romans is often massively over-estimated (there have been genetic studies) by most people. The effect was more of a cultural one. It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.

We're genetically all remarkably similar and I find that oft cited reasoning a fairly massive red herring, the Japanese are genetically (I would guess) very similar to the Chinese but very different culturally and it's culture I've been referring to. I'm sure there's very little genetic variation between a German person and an England person, they remain culturally significantly different in their own viewpoints, likely viewed rather similarly by a tribesman from the Amazon or a Mongolian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I think many Americans might be looking at this discussion and thinking it is kind of weird. We (Americans) do identify somewhat by the state we live in, but I have never seen it expressed to such a level. Unless you live in Texas of course.

Imagine the states had evolved as nations for about 2 thousand years then review it.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.

Well, no. Gaelic is spoken by the Irish. The Welsh speak Welsh. The ancient Scots and Picts had their own languages. The Cornish spoke Cornish. Related to Welsh, I think? But did I miss somewhere where someone said all Celts spoke Gaelic?

The Highland Scots also have their own version of Gaelic (Pronounced Gah-Lic compared to the Irish Gay-Lic or Eirse)
They are very close but do have some differences

 Albatross wrote:
I would add that the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people, though I use both terms fairly loosely, as 'celtic' is something that we have applied to Brythonic peoples retrospectively, and 'English' is the product of acculturation between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Genetically, we're pretty much identical to the rest of our British/Irish brothers and sisters, as the genetic impact of the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans and particularly the Romans is often massively over-estimated (there have been genetic studies) by most people. The effect was more of a cultural one. It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.

"English" comes from the word "Angle", so no, the "English" technically aren't Celtic. Apply it to the people of England then yes, they're Celtic, but the customs they eventually adopted were Germanic. English is a Germanic language.

Gaelic also is the language of the Scots. The Scots originally were a tribe from Northern Ireland who settled the area they called "Dalriada". Eventually, the Picts accepted the Scottish king as their own after a battle with Vikings and the Scottish language was spread throughout what was now Scotland. That, or the fact that there's evidence of a lot of contact between Irish and Pictish merchants. Anyway, Gaelic has two forms: Irish Gaelic (the well-known one) and Scottish Gaelic (which is very similar to Irish Gaelic, I believe and developed from Middle Irish).

EDIT: damn beaten to it!

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:


Gaelic also is the language of the Scots. The Scots originally were a tribe from Northern Ireland who settled the area they called "Dalriada". Eventually, the Picts accepted the Scottish king as their own after a battle with Vikings and the Scottish language was spread throughout what was now Scotland. That, or the fact that there's evidence of a lot of contact between Irish and Pictish merchants. Anyway, Gaelic has two forms: Irish Gaelic (the well-known one) and Scottish Gaelic (which is very similar to Irish Gaelic, I believe and developed from Middle Irish).

EDIT: damn beaten to it!

Huh. I didn't know they were the same! Still, Welsh is not Gaelic. Related? Maybe. But not the same.

Welsh is very similar to Gaelic.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Welsh is very similar to Gaelic.

Not really, Gaelic is Northern Celts language, like Manx, Scots and Irish style.

Welsh is like Cornish and Breton, Southern Celts.

Yeah, Welsh is quite different. It's Brythonic, is it not? The Gaelics and Manx is Goidelic. I'm not quite sure, but it's something to do with the p's and the q's isn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:


Gaelic also is the language of the Scots. The Scots originally were a tribe from Northern Ireland who settled the area they called "Dalriada". Eventually, the Picts accepted the Scottish king as their own after a battle with Vikings and the Scottish language was spread throughout what was now Scotland. That, or the fact that there's evidence of a lot of contact between Irish and Pictish merchants. Anyway, Gaelic has two forms: Irish Gaelic (the well-known one) and Scottish Gaelic (which is very similar to Irish Gaelic, I believe and developed from Middle Irish).

EDIT: damn beaten to it!

Huh. I didn't know they were the same! Still, Welsh is not Gaelic. Related? Maybe. But not the same.

Scots and Irish isn't quite the same. Very similar, same common ancestor, but still different.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

Scots and Irish isn't quite the same. Very similar, same common ancestor, but still different.

My aunt (who is fleunt in Gaelic) can hold a reasonable conversation in Irish. There are obvious differences but the root is the same and Scotland and Ireland are close enough geographically and culturally that there was quite a lot of cross pollination over the years. I do find it interesting that the North Western Irish accent is hard to distinguish from a Western Isles accent.

I believe that fragments of the Pictish language still exists, to some extent at least, in the form of Doric which is a Scots dialect spoken in the North East.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.

Well, no. Gaelic is spoken by the Irish. The Welsh speak Welsh. The ancient Scots and Picts had their own languages. The Cornish spoke Cornish. Related to Welsh, I think? But did I miss somewhere where someone said all Celts spoke Gaelic?

That's the typical shorthand, because of the similarities between the languages at their root. Have you honestly never heard the language spoken by the Welsh, Cornish and Manx described colloquially as 'Gaelic'? Because if that's the case, I would find that surprising.

EDIT: I feel I should clarify the reason for making the statement - the desire for reversion to Gaelic or Brythonic languages is often a component of 'Celtic' nationalisms. In some cases those languages are imports, such as in the case of Scotland and the Isle of Man. There's also evidence (iirc) that Brythonic languages such as Welsh and Cornish 'Gaelic' (a misnomer) have their roots on the continent, making them imports too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
I would add that the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people, though I use both terms fairly loosely, as 'celtic' is something that we have applied to Brythonic peoples retrospectively, and 'English' is the product of acculturation between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Genetically, we're pretty much identical to the rest of our British/Irish brothers and sisters, as the genetic impact of the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans and particularly the Romans is often massively over-estimated (there have been genetic studies) by most people. The effect was more of a cultural one. It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.

We're genetically all remarkably similar and I find that oft cited reasoning a fairly massive red herring, the Japanese are genetically (I would guess) very similar to the Chinese but very different culturally and it's culture I've been referring to.

Actually you referenced your ancestry, so it's reasonable to point out that genetically you probably have a lot in common with the English. And are you you implying that there is as much cultural difference between the English and the Cornish as there is between the Chinese and Japanese? Because that would be silly. Very, very silly.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
I would add that the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people, though I use both terms fairly loosely, as 'celtic' is something that we have applied to Brythonic peoples retrospectively, and 'English' is the product of acculturation between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Genetically, we're pretty much identical to the rest of our British/Irish brothers and sisters, as the genetic impact of the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans and particularly the Romans is often massively over-estimated (there have been genetic studies) by most people. The effect was more of a cultural one. It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.

"English" comes from the word "Angle",

No gak. Did you actually read my post, or just skip straight to Wikipedia?

so no, the "English" technically aren't Celtic. Apply it to the people of England then yes, they're Celtic

Thanks, Captain Obvious. That's actually what I said. What else would I be saying if I said "the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people"?

but the customs they eventually adopted were Germanic. English is a Germanic language.

Two massive over-simplifications. Look up the word 'acculturation' next time you're on Wiki.

Gaelic also is the language of the Scots.

Yes, it is now. It wasn't, however, the original native language of the people living in that area, nor were they called 'Scots'. They didn't even call themselves that. I'm pointing this out to highlight the often ridiculous nature of 'celtic' nationalism, the Scots being the worst offenders, IMO. It's basically all about xenophobia - they're prepared to go to these ridiculous lengths just to differentiate themselves from the English, going back to their 'original' language, when in fact Scottish Gaelic was an import too.

The Scots originally were a tribe from Northern Ireland who settled the area they called "Dalriada". Eventually, the Picts accepted the Scottish king as their own after a battle with Vikings and the Scottish language was spread throughout what was now Scotland.

Those are not facts, and there is no evidence for any of that, as far as I'm aware.

That, or the fact that there's evidence of a lot of contact between Irish and Pictish merchants.

Please, feel free to cite it.

 Albatross wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
I would add that the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people, though I use both terms fairly loosely, as 'celtic' is something that we have applied to Brythonic peoples retrospectively, and 'English' is the product of acculturation between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Genetically, we're pretty much identical to the rest of our British/Irish brothers and sisters, as the genetic impact of the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans and particularly the Romans is often massively over-estimated (there have been genetic studies) by most people. The effect was more of a cultural one. It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.

We're genetically all remarkably similar and I find that oft cited reasoning a fairly massive red herring, the Japanese are genetically (I would guess) very similar to the Chinese but very different culturally and it's culture I've been referring to.

Actually you referenced your ancestry, so it's reasonable to point out that genetically you probably have a lot in common with the English. And are you you implying that there is as much cultural difference between the English and the Cornish as there is between the Chinese and Japanese? Because that would be silly. Very, very silly.

Of course I reference my own ancestry as I'm Cornish, we're talking about Cornish national identity and it's something that existed for them and didn't exist for me. Genetically we are all 99% identical to the Chimpanzees, that discussion is pointless. The English are principally governed in their outlook, culture and language by the Anglo Saxons, the Celtic nations around them are principally governed in their outlook by their peoples, who were here a lot longer ago. Also what is the .0000 degree difference between the English and the Cornish, or the .0000 difference between the Japanese and Chinese and why would it be 'very very silly'? According to you? Good, because noone was talking genetic differences until you jumped in there to point out we're genetically similar, good, I'd expect us to be, but I am Cornish, you are English, you are the result of a thousand years of cultural invasions and shifts in the population make up and I've the result of a region that's had very little impact from those same changes and identifies with an extremely old culture which was identified as separate until someone in London decided to start colouring the map in the same as England and just claim an ownership which has never existed.

 Albatross wrote:

No gak. Did you actually read my post, or just skip straight to Wikipedia?

Thanks, Captain Obvious. That's actually what I said. What else would I be saying if I said "the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people"?

Two massive over-simplifications. Look up the word 'acculturation' next time you're on Wiki.

Those are not facts, and there is no evidence for any of that, as far as I'm aware.

Chill the hell out man, it's Sunday.

 Albatross wrote:

The Scots originally were a tribe from Northern Ireland who settled the area they called "Dalriada". Eventually, the Picts accepted the Scottish king as their own after a battle with Vikings and the Scottish language was spread throughout what was now Scotland.

Those are not facts, and there is no evidence for any of that, as far as I'm aware.

Actually there is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_Riata

The precise nature of the union of the Scots of Dal Riada and the Picts isn't clearly known but they certainly did mearge, apparently peacefully, creating the kingdom of Alba in the process which eventually became modern Scotland. A simple wiki search could have told you that. The langauge of the Scottish court pre Normanification was Gaelic and given that there are Gaelic place names all over Scotland its not a great stretch to say that Gaelic became the defacto 'national' language of Scotland.

Of course language is imported, its a minor wonder that the English don't speak French. By the same token everyone is decended from immigrants. Thats of no consequnce to how people view their nationality or cultural heritage, I am far more Scottish than I am British and I don't care what my passport says.

Why do we even have a monarchy still? I say we kick them out.

I want Charles to become King so that everybody could chant: ALL HAIL BRITANNIA!!! after he gives a speech.

If you don't get it watch this, I should also mentioned that his name is Charles, 99'th Emperor of Holly Britannian Empire:

 Ratbarf wrote:
I don't believe that any of those nations separated without the monarchs writing off on it, unless the power change came about because of revolution.

The referendum here in Australia for us to become a monarch didn't include a 'we'll write to the Queen and ask her to okay this' part. If the referendum had been won the government of Australia would have simply announced we were becoming a Republic and the Queen would no longer be our head of state, and that'd be that.

Personally I want the British Empire back, they did a lot of good in their time, and I think they could fix a lot of the issues with certain areas of the world if they were willing to take them back and enforce good British values and legal practices upon them. Well maybe not the values, but the legal practices and the ability for a higher more powerful authority to deal with the rampant corruption and human rights abuses that is inherent in many of the old colonies would likely be welcome. Just look at what the Malians are saying about the French, it seems they want to be re-colonised because they recognize that the French government is much less corrupt and a much more humanitarian government then the strongmen they've been subjected to since achieving independence.

Just my two cents.

The world in which Europe held colonies just isn't the modern world. Britain and the other European powers just won't invest in what is now the massive money losing operation of running someone else's country for them. Nor would colonies make sense given how these countries have developed.

Assistance packages, where government officials are lent to root out corruption or improve processes, those make a lot of sense. Which is why they presently exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
Yes of course that is the proviso. Like Edward before him, the option remains for Charles to abdicate.

I think it's also important to consider the internal pressure placed on the family, from other members within the royal family itself - it is very much an institution. So Camilla, who was deemed 'not good enough' to be Queen previously (when Charles wanted to marry her) is hardly going to now be the desired option, especially considering the scandal that surrounded them and culminated in Diana's death.

So you're right - it's not a case of a popularity contest, but more the reality of internal power and control within the royal family itself. They have exercised that power many times in the past (with Charles himself in fact - preparing the arranged marriage with Diana, despite what his own wishes might have been). I see no reason to suppose that they won't do so again, and in this sense you can imagine that they won't be immune to the negative public perception of Charles, and the positive public perception of William.

Fair point, and if Charles or any other monarch proved so unbelievably incompetent in the job that the nation began to seriously consider becoming a Republic, I could see "the firm" deciding to pressure a monarch to abdicate in favour of a more likeable heir. But I think you'd have to have a spectacularly incompetent monarch for that to be the case, given how the world is today.

And there's also a lot to be wary of in thinking Charles is some kind of hopeless case, while his son is a wunderkid. People love young royals. Charles used to win bachelor of the year awards when he was young. At the same time they don't much like old royals, except for the king/queen.

I don't know what the psychology of it is, but watch as Charles becomes king. People will start liking him more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Then and there, here and now.

The reasons that happened then, and wouldn't happen now, are very much the same reasons that colonisation just wouldn't happen now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
I don't recall them doing it, "for their own good" unless you mean for the good of the British Settlers. Also, I would think that if the Maoris, Aborigines, Indians (not east indians) and various other peoples who were pulled out of subsistence farming and constant tribal warfare by the British were given the choice to return to their pre contact state or their current state but told to quit their bleepin the vast majority would stfu about the whole thing.

Then you know absolutely nothing of the history of India. I mean, to think the country was just subsistance farming before the British turned up is just staggering ignorance.

So just, please, go and actually read about this before you just start making up opinions in your head.

Secondly, much of that so called genocide was merely the introduction of diseases to native populations.

And really, really terrible agricultural policy enforced on the native population by British rule. 10 million died in India because of the British ideas about what crops would be most profitable.

 sebster wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
I don't believe that any of those nations separated without the monarchs writing off on it, unless the power change came about because of revolution.

The referendum here in Australia for us to become a monarch didn't include a 'we'll write to the Queen and ask her to okay this' part. If the referendum had been won the government of Australia would have simply announced we were becoming a Republic and the Queen would no longer be our head of state, and that'd be that.

The Governor General would still have to sign off on it to make it law, which as the Queen's representative would still mean that the Monarch would essentially be, "Signing off on it."

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

No gak. Did you actually read my post, or just skip straight to Wikipedia?

Thanks, Captain Obvious. That's actually what I said. What else would I be saying if I said "the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people"?

Two massive over-simplifications. Look up the word 'acculturation' next time you're on Wiki.

Those are not facts, and there is no evidence for any of that, as far as I'm aware.

Chill the hell out man, it's Sunday.

Yeah, fair enough. I was staring down the barrel of a hideous night shift when I wrote all that.

/contrition

And I'm only half English, incidentally.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:


The precise nature of the union of the Scots of Dal Riada and the Picts isn't clearly known.

This is what I was alluding to. I wasn't disputing the existence of the Dal Riata. Apologies for not making that clear.

 Ratbarf wrote:
The Governor General would still have to sign off on it to make it law, which as the Queen's representative would still mean that the Monarch would essentially be, "Signing off on it."

Actually, that'd be true. Point taken.

Maybe instead of counting down the EII's demise we should place bets on whether or not she'll actually beat Victoria's record? 3 more years!

Then we can wonder if she'll beat Sobhuza II

I'd just like to thank this thread for introducing me to the word "Ulsterian". But I do not think it (usually) means what you think it means....

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O13-Ulsterian.html