Talk:Celts (modern)/Archive (England)

message: I can't find much evidence (at least from people in the North-East) for a claimed Celtic identity. It is true we share much in common with Lowland Scotland (which is not fully Celtic in culture) and have kilts and bagpipes. 
However bagpipes are not only a Celtic instrument (as they have been used in many cultures for centuries) and Kilts have their origins with the Norse peoples and are only part of Scottish culture due to the influence of the Norse-Gaels (and thus only an import into Celtic culture).
The North-East generally claims a Norse (or Viking as most would say) identity...which is incorrect as most of the North-East was free from Norse rule (though it was a puppet state) except Cleveland and Yorkshire.
Or are we talking about the Irish community (a common site in most cities) in Newcastle (not all of the North-East).
So though the North-East is connected to the Celts (like all of Britain) I would not classify it as a Celtic region nor would I claim that the inhabitants (like me) see themselves anymore Celtic than anywhere else in the UK.
Even if the South would like to think of us as Scotsmen a lot of the time (at least north of Hadrian's Wall). (Unsigned comment by Sigurd Dragon Slayer)
:North East? That means Aberdeen to me. It will mean Maine to a Yank. And Queensland to the Aussie readers. This is an international encyclopedia. If you're going to say "the north east" or "south", you should include the word England! Kilts do not have their origins amongst the Norse at all. The word kilt is probably of Norse etymology, but it's not used in Gaelic. The Ancient Egyptians had kilts, they didn't take them off the Norse. Anyway, the idea that kilts are somehow from the Norse is a complete fallacy, i.e. bollocks. --MacRusgail 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange. Logically the North-east of England would naturally have more Celtic resonance than places south of here, but i would certainly say the general public identify more with the Norse roots than anyother. Also Sigurd Dragon Slayer, you refer to the Irish immigration to Newcastle, do not forgot the Wearside Shipyards which welcomed a large amount Irish to the docks when it was the worlds largest Ship building port, as well as the Pits around Wearside and County Durham, even the name of the old county bears irish influence. The people of the North-east, or Sunderland atleast has had a strong affinity with the irish through centuries or Immigration, maybe this can be an aknowledgement of their Celtic ethnicity? gazh 14:20, 01 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would the North-east of England 'logically ... have more Celtic resonance'?  garik 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from the articles i have read in the past the original Celts of Britain were seemingly pushed to the extreme parts of the Island by the waves of Romans, Angles etc and as the majority of their settlements did not get as far west as Wales or often not as far north as Yorkshire, that would logically lead me to suggest that the North-east would have more Celtic heritage. If i have missed something please point it out. gazh 11:14, 02 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends partly on whether you buy the view of the Celts really being pushed anywhere.  A lot of historians now think it was more a case of assimilation than anything else.  This was almost certainly true in the case of the Romans, and the Germanic invaders/settlers may well have been much fewer in number than was thought.  This kind of thing is disputable though, since evidence is unreliable.  But I'm confused in any case by your claim that the Germanic settlers didn't get as far north as Yorkshire.  They got far enough north, after all, to settle in southern Scotland, and a Germanic kingdom was established in Northumberland in 547 (if the Wikipedia article is anything to go by).  Cumbria, in the North-West, remained a Brythonic kingdom for a while longer (which should not surprise us, considering the name and the fact that the Cumbric language survived till about the 11th century).  garik 10:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i'm certainly not 'claiming' that these pre-Germany Germans did not get as far as Yorkshire, i think there is evidence that they even traded in the Highlands and Orkneys, although i doubt any significant population settled there. The point i was making, is that as the majority of their main settlements were in the Southern half of England, as anything north of Yorkshire was often viewed as hostile, from what i've read. From this, i would come to the conclusion that at this point these settlers would have been a minority in the Northern half of England as well as Wales and Scotland. The Industrial 'boom' saw Leeds, Manchester and in general the North-West receive a load of immigration from the South (thus increasing the germanic presence) as well as the rest of Britain, the North-east did not have this 'boom'. Apologies for my choice of words, i really can't be arsed, interesting debate however. gazh 12:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  The fact that a kingdom was established there implies more than a tiny presence to me, but as I said, there are even those who doubt that they came in very large numbers in the South.  And there are others still who reckon there were Germanic settlements in Britain before the Romans even.  You may be right that the South was somewhat more Germanic-dominated from earlier, but it was the West that seems to have held out the longest, in any case: Cumbria, Wales, Cornwall. Very little of this is based on logic, however, so much as intuition. And let's not forget that the (Germanic) Vikings left a deep mark on most of the North of England, long before the Industrial Revolution. garik 11:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean Northumbria in reference to the established kingdom, aye? I certainly wouldn't attempt to play-down the importance of the Vikings to this region, the influence is massive no question, much like it is on the east coast of Scotland. Although the Vikings and 'pre-Germans' belonged to the same group i certainly see them apart. Much of my interest in this subject is down to the blinkered views of Internationals who view all English as Anglo-Saxon, often with a vague sence of negativity. Thanks for the debate garik, i hope i made you think half as much you have made me. gazh 13:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Scottish Immigration to Tyneside? I wasn't aware of it, i know that Wearside has throughout history had massive immigartion from both Scotland and Ireland and Sunderland was virtually the last Catholic town of England to fall. Aswell as this, during the civil war Sunderland who represented the Parliamentarians defeated the Newcastle based Royalists with help from the Scots, as a result Wearsiders went on to seize Tyneside - much to the delight of us Mackems to this day. gazh 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking in my modern times, you know, 19th century to early 20th century. There were Scottish regiments raised from Tyneside in both world wars. (Maybe that's why there was fewer of them about in your lifetime! 8() --MacRusgail 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I don't think many people would doubt that the North-east of England shares many common traits with 'Celtic' peoples, even if we maybe arn't of Celt origons ourselves. gazh 10:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't doubt it exactly, but I'm very wary of such claims, simply because the North-East of England almost certainly shares many common traits with almost any European (especially Northern European) ethnic or cultural group you might care to name; conversely, I know of no European ethnic, cultural or geographical group that doesn't share many common traits with 'Celtic' peoples.  Now, I'm not saying that the North-East a priori does not exhibit more 'Celtic' cultural traits than, say, the South-East of England, but for this claim to be worth anything at all, we have to list quite specifically the traits we are referring to (ideally in some principled way -- selecting and quantifying traits is far from a trivial task) and compare this region methodically with other regions on that basis.  The same goes, moreover, for those regions considered 'most Celtic' by virtue of still possessing a Celtic language.  Defined purely on such a linguistic basis (and language, after all, is the most solid basis for defining the Celts historically), Wales and Ireland and Brittany could be considered modern Celtic areas to the exclusion of, say, Norway, Spain and England.  A principled comparison of other cultural traits, however, may well group the Welsh more happily with the English than with the Irish. garik 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest my knowledge on this subject is not advanced enough to begin a list of cultural similarities, i am not a student of the subject - just an interested reader. As well as this i certainly wasn't looking for any kind of approval nor was i even ever considering an attempt at getting the North-east onto this article. If you were to explore this 'list' idea further i would certainly chip in with any info on the North-east i can offer, being born, raised and still residing here i'd say i know a fair bit about the cultural identity and people of the region. gazh 10:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to add it, you should stop calling it the "north east". No offence, but this is an international encyclopedia.--MacRusgail 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite true.  My point about the list and the principled comparison of different European regions is that it's a very big task---I could imagine it as a plausible PhD topic.  Unless someone else has already published a comparison of the Celticity of different European, or even just British, regions based on a seriously selected list of traits, then we can't put anything like it in the article.  Most importantly, we need to be very clear what we mean by the word when we say a region is Celtic, or more or less Celtic than some other. That's presumably why organisations like the Celtic League base it on the possession of a modern Celtic language: it's one really obvious, concrete, clearly Celtic trait that is hard to deny.  Most other such traits are infuriatingly slippery. garik 20:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MacRusgail, apologies for that however we are speaking in the discussuon section of 'North East England', i'm sure readers understand what we're on about. Garik, valid points, as i said it's certainly a task above myself which is a big shame because i think the region has a decent shout of getting some acknowledgement, or at least a mention on the article. gazh 09:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll be honest, i didn't reply sooner because your post confused me, your points seem to be all over the shop, and i doubt many of them hold truth. The North-east has less Celt blood because of it's remoteness, so are you suggesting that the land was barren before the Germanic settlers came across? Gazh 12:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: North-East England

message: As i thought it was expressing to strongly th political views of a few people who are seeking to promote areas of england as celtic nations. I have left references in for this but toned them down to a realistic level. The article sould be about 'modern celts' whereas orginally it was more an article about this viewpoint which is a tiny proportion of the 'modern celts' subject and a recent devolpement.I also thought this not as siginificant as the continous argument regarding galicia, which it overshadowed. Perhaps instead a realistic 'celtic remains in england' page would be more appropiate. bg
It's actually not your place to do that Enzedbrit 07:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not entirely true - but its our perogative to move stuff if its pov or useless ;) Robdurbar 11:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have thought that it should be debated on here first.  I'd have taken part in it, but only recently 'discovered' the talk pages.  Durham uni eh?  My mam's family's all from Peterlee Enzedbrit 15:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you from Swindon NZB? --MacRusgail 15:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I was born there and lived there until 9 months.  My paternal family had been there since 1950 Enzedbrit 22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I have edited this article

message: The reference to England on this page is as legitimate, far more so as I'm concerned, than any place in Spain.  To remove it should require discussion on here first. If not, it will be replaced. Enzedbrit 22:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: England should have its own subsection. --MacRusgail 15:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The victims of the famine were British subjects, as was everyone else involved in the famine. In general it would be better to avoid terms of nationality in this context as they tend to sound emotive and accusing. Perhaps "government-aggravated tragedy". Gagonis 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to England

message: The Cumbrian language page doesn't seems to imply that Cumbrian was different from Welsh.  Can you provide proof that Cumbrian was the same as Welsh? 
HillaryMawdesley 07:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very little remains of the Brythonic of the "Old North". Apart from the works of Aneirin and Taliesin, which are firmly classified as Welsh literature, we have little more than placename elements and odd words. It is up to those who claim separate linguistic status for Cumbric/Cumbrian to provide justification. While the speech of any area is liable to develop its own characterisics, there is virtually nothing in the Cumbria/Strathclyde (etc.) Brythonic that we have that sets it apart from northern Welsh. Gagonis 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No it hasn't. Bits of Cumbrian have been found. At last count, there were two reconstructions of "Cumbrian" on the go, with less than two hundred words a piece. You couldn't discuss the football in them could you? --MacRusgail 18:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cumbrian 

message: I think someone should consider creating an extensive article on the regions of England with Celtic backgrounds (it appears Cornwall is already well covered). -gazh
:Cornwall is arguably not part of England. --MacRusgail 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other problem is that all of Britain has some Celtic background.  garik 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in the same sort of sense that one could say Central Turkey (aka Galatia) has a Celtic background... --Krsont 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you - using "Britain" in the purely geographical sense, rather than its political rebranding. All Europe - just about - from Portugal to Iceland, and Ireland to Turkey & the Ukraine has some Celtic background. The parts that don't - that I can think of, offhand, would be the Scandinavian peninsula, the far south of Italy, and large chunks of the former Soviet Union in Europe. --MacRusgail 18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: England was entirly Celtic speaking until the 5th century when most of europe wasn't.  Its not hard to find things that are Celtic in England today.HillaryMawdesley 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Entirely" is highly debatable. Apart from the fact that it was run by Latin speaking Romans for hundreds of years (unlike Scotland), they brought with them speakers of a number of different languages. One hypothesis is that the Anglo-Saxons arrived with the Romans, and that the Germanic speakers of England date from these times. As for your latter statement, it depends what you mean by "Celtic". If you mean the airy-fairy New Age notion of Celtic, then it is possible to find Celtic England on every other street corner. If you mean something substantial, this varies by region. Devon, Cheshire and Cumberland would score better than Kent and Essex.--MacRusgail 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Theres no sensible argument that Cornwall is not a part of England. siarach 12:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I respect your opinion, but this is really a case of "you should know better". There are plenty of such arguments. I suggest you toddle along to constitutional status of Cornwall for a start. Cornwall is no more a proper part of England than Wales is. --MacRusgail 19:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right i should have known better. The issue is by no means as clear cut as i stated yesterday although i dont agree with the comparisons you make between Cornwall and Wales and certainly not with the one you make between Cornwall and Scotland. siarach 09:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't believe that's quite accurate.  The constitutional status of Wales and Cornwall are different: legally, Wales is distinct from England and contains its own counties; Cornwall, on the other hand, is treated as a county of England.  Laws that are passed for "England" apply to Cornwall, but not to Wales (this was not always the case).  This is not to say that Cornwall has no claim to be considered as separate from England in some sense, but certainly its modern legal status differs from that of Wales (which was at one time, but is no longer, treated officially as a part of England). garik 19:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I do note that you say "proper part of England", so I suppose you're not referring to its present legal status.  The problem is that "proper" is a somewhat subjective term.  I do acknowledge, though, that Cornwall may have a better historical claim than some other official parts of England to be treated as separate. garik 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually not all English laws do apply to Cornwall historically. Notably issues such as dying intestate, sea bed laws, fossicking etc. There's more than you'd think. There have also been attempts to rewrite the history of Monmouthshire, and Berwick-upon-Tweed, in the recent centuries, despite ancient historical precedent otherwise.--MacRusgail 21:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when did Cornwall have other counites inside it it was detainly divided into hundreds but I dont think they were ever designated counties and to say its the only county so divided is in fact false look at the histories of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Sussex.  Also it could be claimed that Lancashire and Durham have been seperate entities to England in the past.Penrithguy 17:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: English and Celtic

message: Seemingly discluding the English from having any Celtic heritage.  gazh
:How?  England is included several times in this article.  garik 13:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This exclusion is due to the fact that England has no Celtic language. They don't consider Cornwall part of it by the way. See relevant articles.--MacRusgail 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely.  The concept of Celt has always had more to do with language than anything else.  No one's disputing that a very large proportion of English people have Celtic ancestors.  What exactly would you like to see done differently in the article?  garik 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no real answer to the question of whether lowland Scots is a language or a dialect, since there's no real principled way to distinguish between languages and dialects: Spanish and Portuguese, after all, are mutually intelligible, and possibly more so to some speakers than English and broad Scots.  In any case, it's not a Celtic language at all.  Like English, it's a Germanic language.  It just happens, like English, to be spoken by a large number of people whose ancestors did speak a Celtic language. garik 09:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lowland Scots, Galo, English and French are not Celtic languages. Hence I put them in brackets.--MacRusgail 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because they are currently spoken by millions of people from the Celtic regions/countries. Some of whom speak Celtic languages to boot. 99.9% of Celtic language speakers use English or French on a regular basis, and are fluent in them. The exception would be the Chubut Welsh in Patagonia, some of whom would be more competent in Welsh and Spanish, than English and French. --MacRusgail 18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Practically all of whom. Welcome back, by the way, Rhydd Meddwl.garik 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's an anachronism to say that "England" had a Celtic language (depending on how late you consider Cumbria to have survived, and whether you consider Cornwall to be part of England or not – let's not get into a debate about that right now).  However, I think the reason for mentioning it here is that the area that we now call England, like France, would seem to have been once populated mainly by people who spoke a Celtic language.  In this respect, it differs from many other areas of Europe.  That, I believe, is the point. garik 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Parts of modern day England have spoken Celtic languages into the Middle Ages. I believe parts of the Welsh Marches spoke Welsh into the modern period. --MacRusgail 23:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually yes, you're quite right. garik 23:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elitist and/or racist "Celts"

message: Earlier on I was complaining about the use of the term "Northumbrian tartan", because while it is found there, it is not exclusively "Northumbrian". However, you might be interested to know that there is an actual English tartan these days. I was reading about it in the Scots Magazine yesterday. Modern invention yes, but a tartan specifically for English folk. --MacRusgail 19:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really couldn't give a crap anymore.  Thank you so much.Enzedbrit 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, go and see a shrink, or something. Or move to England like you've been talking about online for the past decade or so. --MacRusgail 16:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a loonatic.Enzedbrit 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lunatic" actually. And please don't vandalise my postings again. --MacRusgail 16:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you know what you are.  Loon, loonatic, lunatic, freak or stalker.  When did I vandalise your postings?  What's your obsession with people moving to England?  Enzedbrit 02:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Loon" means a lad. The spelling is "lunatic". You vandalised my posting on this very talk page by removing a whole section for something like "security reasons", as you put it. I don't have an obsession with moving to England, but you do. You used to blether on about it on the various newsgroups. You've been pushing the same agenda all over the place. Oh, and I haven't been "stalking" you, it's just you've been vandalising material of interest to me all over the internet for at least ten/eleven years, and so have the misfortune to keep on encountering you. You're a married man now, and should have grown up by now. --MacRusgail 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah that - yes, I removed something you wrote.  I would get off your high horse though - you've removed plenty of my postings.  I think that stalker is a good word for you, or dreamer, or retard, or just plain old geek.  To have created a persona for me like this.  Technically too, I'm not married because I don't have that right, but I appreciate the honour.  If you have known me on wikipedia before I were married and perhaps fancied me, and are bitter now that you can't have me, hence this England/agenda stuff, I'm flattered, but I doubt that you're my type. Enzedbrit 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no idea what you look like, and I'm not attracted to men anyway. You're just a weird guy who keeps on cropping up, telling all the people in the British Isles what they're like, without doing proper research or actually living there since your childhood in Swinedung. You've never lived in Scotland in your life, yet seem to know the place better than we do. They are other people on here who think England is Celtic, but they do it in a non-psychotic manner. --MacRusgail 14:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the compliment MacRusgail, even if it was at the expense of NZBrit, glad i'm not looked at as the trite northern wanker that i am, cheers!. Gazh 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay you creep, this wore thin a long time ago.  I have never lived in Swindon, I was just born there, I have lived in England many years, and on here, I am more than happy to defend Northumbrian heritage from you, and fail to see how this applies to all England being Celtic. What's more, the fact that you've even created this thread and its direction is a sign of your own psychotic tendancies. As to you being straight, thank God - only a breeder could be so wanky.Enzedbrit 03:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thread was to point out that there is a (modern) tartan specifically for English people. However, you have lived in New Zealand most of your life (despite protesting your Englishness - must have been something at school) - and have almost certainly not lived in any of the areas of western and northern England (let alone Scotland and Wales) you keep informing us about. You're right - Northumberland has some Celtic heritage, but you could at least pick up on the genuine stuff, like the patterns in its music or words in its dialect. --MacRusgail 12:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Would both of you please move on?  I'd hate to have to dole out blocks for personal attacks and incivility but I will if I have to.  Lexicon (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted something about an English tartan and get reams of abuse in return. So much for sticking to the facts...--MacRusgail 16:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of who started it, or who's in the right or in the wrong, Lexicon is right. Let's just move on. garik 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  REAL English tartan