"

If the Manx are identified as a separate ethnic group, then why aren't the Channel Islanders?  You want so much to believe that the Normans aren't related to the English that you omit them from the related groups section, but keep the Bretons who aren't even part of the British Isles.  In fact; archaeology confirms that the Bretons left Britain as Salian Franks were among the Nordic invaders when Rome fell.  TharkunColl says that the Normans aren't related, but you say that the Channel Islanders do not constitute a separate ethnic group.  Where is the consistency of logic in those assumptions, which defies consensus outside of your joint control of this article?  Things are much different in the wide world of academia and scholasticism.  Well, Channel Islanders speak a language closer to English than any Celtic tongue.  Why is that a bad thing; why does negative POV have to be accepted?  Now, who is fantasising about the Dark Ages again?  Why would the Normans of the Channel be excluded, when they are HM the Queen's loyal subjects?  Remember what they endured for us during WWII, which the Celtic nations did not have so bad...  When has Brittany declared their loyalty these past 500 years?

At least insular Normandy is still with us and this is a fact that TharkunColl especially hates beyond all doubt, since it means that England still has a major toehold of continual ethnic relations with France (while Hanover has come and gone).  He is upset because he views the French relationship to be unfair to England, but has no qualms about that in relation to English ""oppressive influence"" on Celtic speakers with special help by German princes.  The same POV TharkunColl uses to exclude the French is that which the Irish use to exclude the English.  The question is, why would you do something to others if you do not want it done to yourself?  (TharkunColl claims that he is not bound by the Golden Rule, since he is not Christian) The solution is for English and Irish nationalists to not act this way at the Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not a vehicle for these types of POV; these Balkanist notions.  When discussing ethnic relatives, the Channel Islanders are a mutual bridge between the English and French.  This is confirmed by all academics and scholars; that you two fringe-theorists disagree is of no consequence to the world at large.  On this page, there are several objections to your dual consensus, but TharkunColl calls them fantasy.  Why don't we all gang up on you Francophobes together?

You keep the French out because of this Hanoverian fringe who says the English are Germans.  He supports the errant belief that Hanover is where the English come from as opposed to where Denmark's old sphere of influence was and before the Holy Roman Empire and/or Kingdom of Germany existed.  German princes have no roots in England at allthey have only been recent and foreign: Habsburg, Orange-Nassau, Oldenburg (now Mountbatten), Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (now Windsor).  When George changed to Windsor, it did not conceal the true nature of the monarchyneither did the Bombing of Dresden in Saxony have that effect of integrating these Germans.  The more they try so hard to be accepted, the further our people have rejected their status as our Sovereigns.  There have never been so culturally and socially unpopular royalty in the history of the British Isles, yet for some political reasons...others feel it is necessary to make a stalemate by using a straw man fallacy against the Anglo-French fusion which has been witnessed in posterity; by noting that the Germans are an unpopular choice for inclusionall the while saying that Hanover is where the English people are from.

Please, let historical precedent decide who is a part of the English people vs who is only in governmental or political relation/alliance as a result of religious divisions and Parliamentary dictation of Royal affairs ever since the time of colonialism and especially 1603.  Henry VIII of England neither liked Martin Luther and his Prussian/Hanseatic culture, nor was Anne of Cleves going to provide an heirby choice of a King desparate for heirs.  That was the sentiment of the people, whom if Protestant had some Calvinist/French (Huguenot, Puritan) leanings to the exclusion of others.  Wesley's Hanoverian entrance to our religious climate had as much ""imported spirituality"", from the Moravians obviously not being part of English dispositioneven if Wyclif and Jan Hus seemed to get along for the sole purpose of dissent, they were false friends and allied by circumstance of a mutual ""enemy"".  That purported enemy was Rome, the ""Whore of Babylon"" in some claims.  Our cultural traditions tend to be fiercely proud of the Greeks, Romans and Franksit is encapsuled in the machinery of our English language.  I don't give a shit what the German language is com