A lot of people seem to mix up racial type/DNA with nationality. And it would appear that human origins were on the plains of East Africa, when apes came out of the trees. Evolution decreed that those who could stand upright and see far, would get warning of danger, and survive. Mankind spread out, adapted to climatic conditions, formed clans and tribes. Nations came much, much later. Because we're an island, we have a strong sense of nationality - despite there being England, Scotland and Wales. And then we claimed part of an adjacent island and it ended up divided. Now: who was it said that nationalism was the last resort of the scoundrel (or some such phrase)?
Strange bunch sometimes Hull City fans but I guess political and dogmatical difference make the world go round (just!), I suppose they may also bring it to its end!
Either way, and no matter where I live, I'm a proud English East Rider. That lives near a pub older than the US.
I think people going abroad for the one day off we get and anyone keeping stats on how many tourists come for a royal wedding is probably more of a myth.
Songs for the anti-royal wedding street party: Let's start off with 2 of Hull's finest bands: Housemartins - Flag Day Beautiful South - I Think The Answers Yes Additionally the Hull street party could play: The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead/Nowhere Fast Sex Pistols - God Save The Queen Stone Roses - Elizabeth My Dear Primal Scream - Star Storm the Palace - Catatonia Do you want to hear it from me - Gene Could get the night off to a good start - Add in a bit of Billy Bragg and we have the makings of a good Republican street party!
Due to the wedding's proximity to Easter it created a 4-day week, followed by a 3-day week and another 4-day week. It was rude not to!
I think that East Africa thing's a typo. It's East Riding. And if you don't believe me, have a night out in Beeford. I don't think most of us are anti-royalist, it's more don't-give-a-toss-royalist. Probably from when William the Conqueror killed 10% of the population to stop viking rebellions. I like all that DNA origins stuff, I'd have a test done myself but bet it costs a few quid. I thought most of us matched german DNA from the saxon and goth invasions...must be on internet somewhere. On about goths I don't mean the spiders goths, unless they moped the celts out of the country. I think the quotes from samuel johnson, the dictionary inventor.
Forget the East Africa/East Riding thing....I think your post complements what I was trying to say: we're a mongrel/mixed "race", with stacks of threads mixed up amongst us. (They have found the skellies of Africans among Roman soldiers dug up in the UK). Willy the Conk carried out "The Harrying of the North" because he'd beaten Harold and the Godwinsons (= southerners), but the North was, as you point out, very Danish/Viking and had to be subdued and subjugated. Don't forget Harold's Battle of Stamford Bridge, against the Earl Tostig and Harald Hardrada - these men, and most of their troops, were Norsemen. Harold Godwinson was a Saxon thane, but the Viking influence and, indeed, the Viking component of the northern population, was very strong. A whole nother thing... F**k me! Did I spout all that?!?!?
I agree. early human, celt, roman, saxon, viking, norman....irish, then after 2nd WW commonwealth indian/carribean. A mix, which is why it's good to be english because mogrel dogs are often healthier than pedigrees. The african skeletons thing doesn't surprise me, the italians get a creditable silver for biggest ever empire and auxillians formed the bulk of their armies with a hardcore of romans. One thing that did surprise me was they found cocaine molecules in egyptian mummies hair...along with the mexican pyramids it implies trade links with south america 4000 years ago as that's the only place it grows. So people moved about more than you'd think. I think the englishness thing didn't happen until henry VIII either, before then nobles spoke french and their allegience was to the king not the country...they probably saw more in common with french nobles than english peasants. And the words show this, beef bouef, ham jambon, show the french link for the people eating the stuff the grebs doing the mucking out used cow, pig, bull - saxon words. Anyway, it's a laugh no-ones bothered about the wedding eh? And that comment about the old pub....we went to Houston a few years ago (got a friend who's an oil surveyer) and went on a tour where the guide was saying "this is houstons oldest street - 1860!!!!!" and was surprised by our blank faces.
You speak for yourself, I'll settle for the considered view of experts which says most of us share our DNA with the pre-Roman mongrel, pre-Viking mongrel original inhabitants.
Courts had adopted a version of French from the jacobites and Stewarts but commoners wouldn't understand much of it. It's why romance language words are accepted but the Germanic word for the same thing was taboo slang.
We've been colonised a few times though...is DNA from most modern english different to DNA from most modern germans or french or danes then? And does that DNA correlate to whatever DNA they've found in 10 000 year old bones and hair for example? The french thing...the first nobles were norman french, so they spoke it...that's what I was saying. Just as the top brass in the north probably spoke danish or whatever instead of saxon...or some combination, I don't know.
Not so much colonised but people have arrived here and the first nobles being French is very debatable. The experts reckon their wasn't much mixing of dna but elements of the new language and culture were adopted. The DNA of the original settlers certainly differs from the French (who are extremely mongrelised) and to a lesser degree from the Danes.
Early nobles were mainly norman french, Wikipedia quotes 80% of nobles being of norman origin shortly after the invasion. Most history is debatable, especially early history, but the majority view is probably reflected on there. Any professors of history to stick their oar in please? So about the DNA thing...are you saying that there's more correlation between early english and modern english DNA than early french and modern french DNA?
Wikipedia FFS. No wonder you're asking about "English" and "French". They're meaningless in this context. Try looking beyond Wiki.
I thought I'd be open to criticism for that...it's just handy and I wanted to check what I thought was consistent with a majority view. I don't have history books lying around. When I say "English" I mean "people living within the modern boundries of the country currently known as england" and likewise for french, I know it's meaningless until later in the middle ages, but wanted to keep things simple. As you know, I suspect. Anyway, if things are getting pedantic instead of interesting it's time to scoot. Tattybye.
