A lot of people in other Countries that talk of their deep history would raise an eyebrow at your desperate claims. The Scandinavians with their sagas for one. The Country name doesn't always reflect the geneology of the people. Stop digging you dopey old sod.
If Sadiq can claim to be an Englishman then Queen Boudicca is probably a Pakistani in lefty Labour world
Actually Archers seems remarkably well informed on ancient British history. Not my period, but it all makes sense.
He's not technically wrong on all of it, but he's using the wrong information in the hope it supports his non-argument. That's simply deceitful.
Precisely. He's once again trying to argue to push an ideology, rather than debating the actual facts.
Perhaps Italy can give us indigenous peoples land & stakes in casinos built on our land as reparations?
No silly, it wasn't the Italians, it was the Romans, who happened to be a bundle of mongrels, mercenaries and slaves, but we have to ignore all that.
Italians were knitted by a lady called Catherine Eddowes in the 1860's. Before that there were no Italians, so anyone claiming to have a long Italian ancestry is a liar in Archie's book. She was later killed by a Countryman Jaques de Ripé in the Italian City of London.
England did not exist until some time after the Angles arrived. The concept of a Kingdom of all the English (Angles) was a dream of Alfred the Great, but didn’t really happen until Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria, East Anglia and Kent were all united with Denmark and Norway, as part of Cnut’s North Sea Empire. This was all long after the Britons were pushed westward into Wales and Cornwall.
The boundaries of Denmark and Norway are different now to what they were then, so by your argument some of those invaders didn't even exist. You've also wiped out the history of places like Italy. That's how ridiculous your argument is, and you know it.
