We'll have to agree to disagree then Dutchy! As far as I'm concerned we were invaded in 1688 and are a mix of about 20 tribes from Europe, the Celts were the indigenous (if you can call them that) people before the Romans started the invasion sequence and the Celts ended up being driven to Wales and Cornwall, so probably the best examples of 'Brits' are out with the pasty munchers out West Country way and our sheep shaggin friends (of which I'm partly one)!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560614/The-1688-invasion-Britain-thats-erased-history.html Depends whether you agree if it's an invasion, it meets the criteria as far as I'm concerned (1688)
Ah, you've got me there. I was relying n history buffs, I didn't realise I should have been checking the Daily Mail. Presumably the waves of modern immigration also meet your definition of an invasion. You can agree/disagree all you like, I'll just settle comfortably with the view of the experts that say you've got your facts wrong. What I'm more interested in is why you're so desperate to be labelled a mongrel when the rest of us are a bit more thoroughbred? Now, the people you claim "invaded" us, now they were mongrels.
I think mongrels too strong a word, I did have a few beers last night so maybe there could be a better way to put that. We definitely aren't all pure bred Brits except for a few West Country and Welsh folk. As for the experts, I'll go with mine and you go with yours and thats what it's about, healthy debate.
That's the myth that's peddled, scientific DNA evidence doesn't support it. If you want to be a mongrel or however else you want to describe yourself, that's entirely your choice and I respect that. What you can't do is add "we" to your choice as, according to the experts your own heritage doesn't hold true for most of the Country.
Sorry, just saw your Daily Mail comment, no offence mate but their politics is a long way from mine. I could have used a left-wing paper to illustrate the point but wasn't thinking along political lines. Been a good debate anyway, glad to see somebody so proud of their background!
My opinion was formed from many different sources. Here's a link to an article that covers some of it. I don't know the quality of this article, I've only skimmed the first bit after a very quick google. I'm linking it to save a lot of typing and as a starting point for you to look up an alternative to what you've been taught rather than as conclusive proof of anything. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/
Agreed, it's tricky to discuss sensitive and emotive topics on a messageboard without coming across clumsily. Thanks for taking the comments in the manner they were meant.
Thanks, great article that. Seems like this is quite a controversial topic, I guess I'm going to keep an open mind for the time being. At least this thread has filled the gap of no football news for now.
That article links to a later one, and that later one contains the following head popper: "...statistically all of us are descended from everyone: allowing 25 years per generation, in the 62 generations since 450AD, we have had 4.6 x 10exp16 direct ancestors, more people than have ever existed, and so we must be related to everyone on earth many times over."
Whats DNA got to do with anything, if you were born in England, you are English its irelevant where your parents or grandparents come from. Thats like saying black Americans are not Americans, or white Americans are not Americans,that only the native Indians can be true Americans.
So if your mum and dad are from Hull and dads on a contract working in Africa and you're born in Africa you're African?
The original homo sapiens are supposed to have come from Africa aren't they so I guess that's pretty much true, we all have to have one common ancestor.
If your entire family tree, going back as far as records allow, shows every one of your relatives to be a Yorkshireman, yet you are born on a Turkish plane as your parents return from a holiday, you are classed as Turkish by birth. Crazy.
