Talk:English people/Archive 5

message: Hello, perhaps the religion section of this article could be touched up a bit.  For example, Jewish English people are given quite a mention but not Hindu or Moslem.  According to the demographics of England article..?
# Muslim: 3.1%
# Hindu: 1.1%
# Sikh: 0.7%
# Jewish: 0.5%
I have nothing against Jewish people, but why are they singled out above the other religions..? User:Dan Carkner 04:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because there are people whose ethnicity is English or British and whose religion is Jewish, but very few whose religion is Muslim or Sikh?  I think though that the number of indigenous British people whose religion, if they have one, is not Christian is so insignificant that any inclusion other than Christianity is irrelevant to the facts that are trying to be presented. Enzedbrit 21:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole article is about defining the English.  The way it has gone, it has done so on an ethnic/racial basis.  Black and Asian people living in Britain who aren't Christian can claim to be of English or British ethnicity if they have that blood, that is, an indigenous parent or grandparent or something less diluted, and if there is a sizeable proportion of these people in the UK who aren't Christian but Hindu or Muslim, then yes, there is a basis to include those religions as religions of people who are of the English ethnicity.Enzedbrit 01:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know why there is a religious section. Maybe the infobox contains one by default. If you think it is a good idea to remove religion fromthe infobox then I would agree with you, but we need to see what the general feeling of other editors is. I don't think that religion is a big issue in England, most people are not religious, though would probably describe themselves as CofE. Alun 15:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is it questionable that some people self-identify as English? Are you implying that no one self-identifies as English? In that case there would be no English people at all, which is rather a strange thing to claim. Scottish people does not have a religion section at all, so how can it be a temlate? I can only assume that you are implying that the descendants of recent immigrants do not self identify as English, to which I can only answer that anyone that holds this view clearly has no idea whatsoever about modern England, I personally know several people who are muslims and of Pakistani origin that strongly identify as English. See: Asian recruits boost England fan army   Alun 12:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What? So a person who is ethnically English who is a muslim can't be English according to you. But some foreigner who knows nothing about English ethnicity, but who thinks they might have some English ancestors does count as ethnically English? Ethnicity is nothing to do with descent or ancestry, it's to do with identity. I personally know many English Asians that are muslims, they are certainly more ethnically English than I am, and I have three English grandparents. I am Welsh. Ethnicity is about identity. Alun 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's talking about proportionality. As far as I can see, most English people are agnostic nominal Christians (the Christian majority was confirmed in the 2001 census), and most Muslims etc consider themselves (and are considered by the government, e.g. in the census data) as "ethnic minorities" (does this imply that they are not ethnic English?). In my opinion, the largest religions should be there only, as otherwise it would be opening the floodgates: the article currently mentions Buddhism and not Mormonism, despite the fact that there are about just as many Mormons as Buddhists in the UK. I also think that "Christianity" is too vague: we should specify the denominations in order of their membership: Anglicanism, R. Catholicism, Methodism etc. Islam should definitely be there, but the smaller groups should be grouped together as "others" in my opinion.--Rudjek 17:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'll say this again. You are confusing those whose ethnicity is English for those who live in England. The two are very different terms. Alun what you are suggesting is most bizarre. Firstly you seem to believe that the number of ethnically English Muslims is large enough to warrent comparison with ethnically English Christians. I can assure you this is not the case. Most English Muslims trace their ancestry to the Indian subcontinent, or to Africa, they certainly do not trace their ancestry to England any further than the last century. Ethnicity has a hell of a lot to do with descent and ancestry, it is not simply about identity. Again, I believe you are confusing the meaning of being ethnically English, ie having English ancestry, and being 'of' England, ie someone who lives in England. The two are different, they are not the same. Again, you cite English Asians who are Muslim as being more ethnically English than you, someone who has three English grandparents. That is the most bizarre statement I have ever heard. The ethnicity of these English Asians cannot possibly be English, you have just noted that they are from Asia, and will have an ethnicity that corresponds to this. You on the other hand are ethnically English because of your ancestry. This should be a very simple idea, I am bewildered you find it so hard to believe otherwise. Please read this article , I'm afriad to say, they are not ethnically English, even though British Asians live in England, and may identify with England, it doesn'tchange their ancestry. 10:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion 

message: Someone has changed indigenous to pre-Roman on the history page.  I have reverted this but feel then that this should be discussed.  The British people, including the English, as detailed in this article, are the indigenous people of Britain.  We are so because we are the direct descendants of the first people to live in Britain.  There has been cultural shift but not genetic/blood shift from our aboriginal ancestors.  The term indigenous has been applied here to differentiate between the various groups of peoples that have contributed to the English people in genetic and cultural terms.  The use of indigenous Brythonic people is used to show that before the Roman occupation, the culture of our ancestors (in what is now England) was Brythonic.  I believe that indigenous is the correct word to use here; others might have a differing opinion. Enzedbrit 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Brythonic", which is what the link leads to, is primarily linguistic in meaning, and refers to a Celtic language. There is evidence that an earlier language was spoken in the British Isles prior to the introduction of Celtic, so the use of "indigenous" might give the false impression that Celtic was the first language spoken here. How about something like "prehistoric" instead? TharkunColl 22:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think prehistoric is appropriate as pre-Roman Britain wasn't prehistoric and we still know a relative lot about these people.  You're right that Celtic languages weren't necessarily the first people, but the term indigenous is to my thinking still correct.  Indigenous Brythonic speaking people perhaps?  The same could be true today of the indigenous Germanic speaking people of Britain - we're still indigenous although we now speak a Germanic language. Enzedbrit 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, okay. At least that makes it more clear that the phrase Brythonic is primarily linguistic, rather than ethnic. TharkunColl 07:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not necessarily, some linguists and archaeologists now think that Indo-European may have been introduced into Great Britain as long ago as the early Neolithic, and Celtic languages developed in situ as it were. This view tends to be held by archaeologists who do not see any evidence of mass immigration to Great Britain after the Neolithic. Francis Pryor (Britain BC) and Barry Cunliffe have both written about the lack of archaeological evidence for mass immigration after the Neolithic, and Barry Cunliffe in Iron Age Britain states that many linguists now think of the origins of Brythonic Celtic as indigenous. It's a POV, but one that can be verified. Alun 12:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be more than happy to accept that the Brythonic languages evolved in Britain.  Enzedbrit 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indigenous/Pre-Roman

message: Come on TharkunColl; which happens to encapsulate English ethnic identity more?  Would German culture be something English are, while English culture is something English are not?  Keep thinking ill of the Norman Conquest.  Defame Emma of Normandy for all you really care.  I have placed this here, because you wanted to have the last word on my (and our) talk pages.  For those unaware of the dispute, his desertion of the argument is here:  User_talk:Lord_Loxley#Third_.28and_final.29_reply_to_User:Lord_Loxley.  Lord Loxley 15:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[English Channel]] vs [[German Ocean]]? 

message: There is a report of what sounds like an interesting paper concering Anglo-Saxon immigration and the genetic composition of the modern English population at . Perhaps somebody could have a look at the paper itself, since media reports of this type of study are not always reliable. Rhion 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had a look for the paper online but cannot find it. The BBC are a bit crap, they don't cite the paper at all, or even give it's title, just the name of the publication. It may not be published yet, but there is at least one mistake in the BBC article Genetic research has revealed the country's gene pool contains between 50 and 100% Germanic Y-chromosomes. This work is not definitive and may be wrong. I may be able to access the paper when I go back to work as we have access to most of the major molecular biology journals there, but I don't have access at home. Thanks for the info. Alun 06:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with you. I get the impression that this group of researchers are out to sensationalise their findings, presumably in the hope of getting greater funding in the future. The original paper (Y Chromosome Evidence Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration) recieved a great deal of media coverage, much of which was a distortion of the actual findings. But the results of their original paper were limited to say the least, taking as they did samples from a simple cross section of Britain from East Anglia in the east to North Wales in the west. They found a large proportion of genetic markers on Y chromosomes in the east of England that were similar to samples of Frisian origin, the so called Germanic genes, with little evidence of these markers on the Y chromosomes of Welsh men (which were more similar to markers on the Y chromosomes of Basque men). This lead to all sorts of claims in the media that Welsh people are genetically different to English people, and ignored the fact that there was also a hight prevelance of indigenous genetic markers in the English samples as well, and even claims that somehow Welsh and Basque people are closely related. A far more reliable study done by UCL, A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles showed that there does seem to be a greater genetic contribution to the York and Norfolk areas by people coming from North Germany, Denmark and possibly Friesland, but that this does not apply to the whole of England, even in the south of England which was supposedly settled by Saxons. The paper also states that it is not possible to distinguish between Danish-Viking and Anglo-Saxon genetic markers, so are they measuring Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Danish genes? No one knows even now. This paper didn't get anywhere near the exposure of the original paper because it's results didn't support the sort of racial differences that seem to be considered sensational by journalists. Now they are claiming that even with a small migration it could still imply a large Anglo-Saxon population relative to the indigenous one. Both the first paper and the last are reliant on a great deal of supposition, and upon computer modelling, the first model was to try to simulate the effect of a mass migration on an indigenous population, the second to try to simulate a small population out competing a larger one on the basis that the smaller population had a selective advantage. It's all very well, but it only seems to apply to central England (a point made in the New Scientist article ) but generally ignored by others, and it is also highly contingent upon the accuracy of their numerous assumptions. The reliability of any science decreases the greater the number of assumptions made, and in the New Scientist article this point is made well by another scientist commenting on the work. It seems to me that this work must be interpreted in light of what assumptions have been made, and how good their computer models are. What they are probably claiming (and I haven't actually had a chance to read the paper yet) is that this is possible rather than this occured. Alun 17:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And here it is, a terrible piece of journalism purporting to be an article about science, but full of mistakes, misunderstandings and sensationalist rubbish. Even the first sentence is wrong Anglo Saxons were the first apartheid racists, who said they were the first? And racists, all societies were what we would call racist at that time. Alun 03:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The paper you link to A Y chromosome census of the British Isles extensively cited in the article. I do like your map. I have been thinking of trying to produce something similar myself, but did not really know how to do it, I'm certainly not very competent with graphics. Alun 13:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins

message: I have been keeping an eye on this article for a couple of months. As it is obvious that the conflict is not going to go away, I have taken the liberty to place this request for comments. The origin of the dispute is about whether Bretons, Danes, Dutch and Frisians should be added to the list of related people to the English. E  Asterion u talking to me? 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I do not doubt they would feel more closely related to other Insular groups, but I also believe, from my experience with people who are English, that they obviously feel more related to especially Danes and Frisians but also Dutch (especially if from the east of England) then to say French or Italians. User: 23:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously have a very limited experience of English people. Have you actually ever been to any of these places you claim to know so much about? Alun 05:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You claimed to have personal experience of people specifically from the east of England. Now it seems that you have never been to England at all and have learnt all you know about the English from books. TharkunColl 22:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've had personal exprience with English people from all over England, but not in the UK itself. I myself am of mainly German and Flemish descent, but I know many English people from the UK as well as those of English descent who live here in the USA. I've also learnt much from books and other media. Whats your point here "TharkunColl" ? 69.157.126.241 22:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone could argue that places like Goole, Crowle or if you want to push it Epworth and the Isle of Axholme do have some relation with the Dutch, but I really doubt local people really think this way anymore. Regards, E  Asterion u talking to me? 23:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Peoples related to the English

message: I thought this article was about the people of English people of England. The religion section does not make sense because it is including none English people like Pakistani/Indian who are Muslim, and Indian Sikhs and Hindus. Related ethnic groups look better than a religion section that includes people other than english.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.149.183 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree. This article is about the English ethnic group, rather than people who live in England. I'm rather surprised to see those religion figures there. Although they can be clearly referenced to the population of England, they cannot be related to those who identify as English. We hardly even know how many people identify as English, nevermind their religion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of people of Pakistani/Indian/West Indian origin that identify as English. There are many people that identify as English that are Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists. The data were presented as proportions, not numbers of people and they can be verified. Why was the previous version any better, it was not based on any measure of ethnicity and religion? If you want to be finickety about it then we might as well remove the whole infobox. None of the figures in the infobax is anything but a guess. I could equally argue that the figures for English people in the USA and Australia are for people of English descent, and not for people that identify as belonging to the English ethnic group and so these figures are wrong. If your argument is that non-white English people cannot be ethnically English then I would suggest you depart forthwith from this page and don't come back, ever. Alun 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Charming. Whilst I completely agree that non-white people can be English, these figures relate specifically to the population of England. They include people (10%) who identify solely as belonging to another ethnic group. If this article is now about the population of England, rather than people of English ancestry or ethnicity, then let's be clear about that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures are proportions, not absolute figures, 10% for the entire population of England may identify as belonging to a different ethnic group, how do you know that the proportions for religious belief are different between those that identify as English and those that just live in England? Even the figures given for the population of English people living in the UK are wrong, as they only count white people as English (see the footnote). This even excludes people who are of indigenous English descent, who identify as English but who may also have descent from non white backgrounds, it also excludes people that identify as English that aren't descended from indigenous people, so effectively this measure is not ethnicity but race. The data given for religion are far from perfect, I grant, but are no less biased than any of the other data presented in the infobox, and at least their origin is clear. While it is difficult to determine the extent of English identity within immigrant groups and their descendants, I would guess (from personal experience) that the vast majority of the descendants of immigrants identify as English even if their parents/grandparents do not. I did not wish to cause offence, my comment was only aimed at those people who are conflating race with ethnicity, as you have stated that you don't, it was not directed at you, nonetheless I appologise if it offended you. Alun 10:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, actually no numbers of people are given, so how can they include people who do not identify as English they do not include any people at all. Come on Epf, I thought you were a scientist, even 12 year olds know the difference between absolutes figures and ratios. If you are trying to imply that no English people are Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or Buddhists then that is demonstrably nonsense. The figures given are proportions, if you dispute the ratios given then that's fair enough, the ratios given are based on those derived from the UK census, this is clear in the footnote. As long as it's clear what the figures relate to then I see no real problem, it's not like we're trying to hide their origin. Can you produce any other figures? There may be a higher proportion of Muslim and Hindu English people, as there is probably a significant number of English people outside of the UK that follow these religions, probably in India and Pakistan. The majority of English people are probably non-religious anyway. Maybe the best thing to do would be just to give the major religions practiced by English people leaving any figures out. I must admit I do not like the infobox at all, nearly all of the data there are somewhat suspect. All of the data relating to numbers of English people in various countries around the world are suspicious, mostly they refer to descent and not to ethnicity at all. Even the figures for the UK are rubbish. I think the most reliable figures are for Canada and New Zealand, because at least they refer specificallt to ethnicity in their census forms. Maybe we should rethink all of the data in the box, what do you think? Alun 05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous figures for religion were calculated based on people resident in England, far from perfect, whether they reflected similar proportions for English people is unknowable. It was probably an error of judgment on my part to include them. I think removing the figures but keeping the religions is a much better way of doing it. I never asserted you had more or less knowledge of any subject, I merely claimed that a ratio is not the same as an absolute number, so it makes no sense to claim that the ratios represented 10% of people who are not English, they represented proportions of people practicing certain religions in England, they never claimed to speak for all English people, and the footnote made this clear. In answer to your question I think there are many criteria for ethnic identity, one of these is descent, but it is not the only one and you know this very well, descent alone is only relevant to race. Indeed one may be able to show that people from the same ethnic group are generally more closely biologically related to each other than to people from other ethnic groups, but this biological relatedness is not the main criterion for defining an ethnic group, it ia a criterion, It is a consequence of a group of people seeing themselves as distinct from other groups over a period of time. Because individuals see others within their group as like and other groups as different, they are more likely to reproduce within their own group, over time leading to a certain biological homogeneity within the group, so it's an effect and not a cause. Be that as it may, defining oneself as of English descent is not the same as defining oneself as English, for example someone with a single English parent/grandparent/great-grandparent/great-great-grandparent (etc.), who has no concept of English society or culture and who may not even be able to speak the language, is still of English descent and would have the right to claim such on a census form, biology is not ethnicity, and descent does not necessarily imply close relatedness. From one point of view there is no problem with the data in the infobox, they are all verified, from another perspective the data are a heterogeneous mix, all derived using wildly differing sampling techniques, they are not really presenting like with like. I am wondering if one way to tackle this might be to think along the lines of jusst listing the countries with significant populations without actually trying to put a figure on the population, as we have done with religions. It's good to have you back Epf, hope you had a brilliant Summer. Alun 20:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: From what I've been reading recently it seems to me that the importance of descent with regard to ethnic identity is largelly dependent on the group in question. For example in Germany it seems quite important to be able to show some sort of German pedigree to be accepted as German. Some German language dialects are mutually incomprehensibe and could be considered different languages, but because of the percieved ethnic closeness of  the speakers they are considered the same language. On the other hand Serbs and Croats are biologically identical and have mutually comprehensble languages, but certainly view each other as different ethnic groups, as far as I can tell on the basis of religion. They deliberately try to exagerate the small differences (probably because they are small) by the use of the Latin alphabet in Croatia and the Cyrillic one in Serbia and by classifying Serbian and Croatian as seperate languages, though untill recently it was considered the same language Serbo-Croat. Sometimes it is not religion or descent but language that is the defining elememt in ethnic identity. I've ordered a couple of books from amazon (handy for me here in Finland to get stuff from amazon.co.uk) Language and Nationalism in Europe and The Origins of the English in the hope that they can provide some citable material, especially with regard to the related ethnic groups section. I'd like to be able to include some groups here and I think any groups that we can provide a citation for should go in. I may be well off the mark here, but it also seems to me that people living in the New World seem to identify descent closely with ethnicity, for example the famous Irish Americans who seem often to be third, fourth or even fifth generation Americans, but still identify strongly as Irish. I don't think this is so strong in Europe, it certainly isn't so strong in the UK where many people probably don't even know where their grandparents parents came from, I think we tend to identify with where we grow up. Whatever the truth I don't think there is an universal formula for ethnic identity, it seems quite nuanced and depends on different components within each group or community. Groups certainly can split away from a parental ethnicity to form a de Novo group, and ethnic groups can merge, up untill the 11th century Danes in the Danelaw certainly weren't considered English, but today I don't think anyone indigenous English person would identify as ethnically Danish (unless of course their descent is much more recent), so the Danes in England have adopted an English identity, as have other groups. Conversely the Danes in the Danelaw must have given up their Danish identity to become English. England's a complicated place, and the UK more so. Irrespective of our different point of view regarding this, I think we can certainly include both perspectives in the article and come to agreement. Alun 05:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I see your point. My understanding is that even on the 1991 and 2001 censuses respondents could choose multiple ethnicities, but that in 1996 it was clearer that this was the case. I agree that this is a strange way to collect data, it is preferable to allow people to identify with all of the groups for which they have an affinity. On the other hand we should probably accept the data that the NZ state uses, like we do for other census data from other countries. Alun 05:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: I wonder why we have Elizabeth Tudor in the picture. Surely her grandad was Henry Tudor, who was Welsh (descended from Owain Tudur). Tudur was a family name for a Welsh noble family. Shouldn't we have people who are more English, and monarchs aren't really representative of ethnically English people, unless we go to before 1066 (so Alfred the Great might be better?). Why not some contemporary English people? And why not representatives from sports? W. G. Grace or even David Beckham spring to mind. Why Newton and Darwin? Do we need two scientists? I'd go for Darwin, but I'm biased as I'm a biologist. There should probably be a Prime Minister there, even the Milk Snatcher would do, and she's very recognisable. Any takers? Alun 17:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elizabeth's mother was English. Her father's mother was English. She was at best therefore only a quarter Welsh, and probably much less than that. She was born and brought up in England, and identified her own nationality as English - very strongly in fact: "I may have the body of a..." (etc.). She is also a crucial figure in English history, turning it from a bankrupt backwater into a European power. Her reign witnessed a cultural flowering of English literature. In short, she was one of the most important monarchs that England has ever had. TharkunColl 20:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but I wouldn't include any monarch, why not stick to English people of renown in their own right. No monarch can be considered representative of English people in general, they are only notable for their birth and not for their achievements. I admit this is my personal bias, I don't like monarchy at all and this page is not about them, it's supposed to be about normal people, the nation. Alun 05:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Elizabeth I is definitely one of the most significant Englishwomen in history, and I think it's good to include at least one woman. Her achievements match those of any king: she helped save England from becomming a vassal state by repelling the Spanish Armada and implemented a religious settlement which is the basis for the modern Church of England. She is one of the most significant English people in history. I think her picture should stay--Johnbull 05:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She was also a murderous dictator. What she did for the state does not correlate with what she did for the people. Her policy of stealing common land by enclosing it was hardly beneficial to the people, neither were her poor laws (needed largely as a result of her land enclosure). If we want a woman to be represented then it doesn't have to be a despot, though another despot springs to mind, Margaret Thatcher, I may have no time for the woman, but at least she was elected and got to be PM by her own achievements. I really don't think we need to have monarchs portrayed, they are not representative of the English nation. This is about the English people, it is not about monarchs or history. I would suggest William Shakespere, Charles Darwin, Margaret Thatcher and Nasser Hussain, that way we have a broad stretch of history, we include a woman and show the diversity of modern English people, we also have contemporary representation. In addition to these we also include a politician, a scientist, a writer and a sportsperson, and so have a varied representation of disciplines as well. I would be happy to include a footballer instead of a cricketer, and a different scientist, Isambard Kingdom Brunel or Isaac Newton for example. Alun 06:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if she was as bad as you say, she still deserves to go in, simply because of her fame. Does the box include people for their goodness, or just for their fame and influence? For the same reason the exclusion of Hitler from the German box is disingenuous at best, for he is surely the most famous German who has ever lived (yeah, I know he was born in Austria, blah, blah... actually, to be honest, I haven't even checked, but I'm willing to bet that he's not included in the German photo montage). In fact, though she was certainly responsible for some bad things, Elizabeth was very much a person of her time, and there is no way she can be portrayed in a wholly negative fashion - quite the opposite I think. Your suggestion that people be included only if they have achieved fame though their own efforts and not by a privileged birth does indeed have merit, but unfortunately we'd end up with a very limited selection, because the vast majority of famous people from history have been either aristocrats or those from wealthy backgrounds. Would Darwin have been so influential had he been born to a Yorkshire coal mining family? To single out monarchs as too privileged to count is to draw an arbitrary line. In fact, most monarchs of England have been neither English, nor in any way distinguished, and Elizabeth is one of the few who was both, and being a woman makes her an even better choice. TharkunColl 08:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually my point was more that they are not really representative of the English people. I don't think monarchs should be included because we always have one, their notability is mainly because they are so unrepresentative of the population. This article is not about them, or the aristocracy, it's about the people. The fact that she is a woman is irrelevant, there are many notable English women that could be included, from all sorts of backgrounds. There are a plethora of excellent English female novelists from the 19th century for a start. I do agree women should be represented, on relfection I think there should be two men and two women. Rosalind Franklin springs to mind, but then I've been doing a lot of work on her article so she would. Surely we can come up with better people than monarchs? Is the old class system and biased school history so firmly entrenched that we can can't see these people for what they were? Not representatives of English people, but repressors of English people. Alun 10:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I should point out that this is my opinion, if the general feeling is that the present people are OK, then I'm happy to go with them. I was speculating that we could get better and more representative people there, that's all. Of the current crop, I don't like Elizabeth Tudor, the rest are fine, though I don't see why we have two scientists, maybe we could replace one of the scientists with a more contemporary woman, possibly a sportsperson like Kelly Holmes, she's an Olympic gold medalist and an English person? What do you think? Alun 10:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elizabeth Tudor

message: This is complete and utter rubbish. There is No evidence of a White Dragon flag. This has aleady been rubbish on:
http://www.icons.org.uk/nom/nominations/whitedragon/comments
http://crossofstgeorge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9457&highlight=white+dragon
If they cannot provide the evidence then they are lying.
I've added the following sentence to 'Symbols' on the England page:
"A new or indeed old symbol being resurrected is the 'White Dragon Flag' of the English. This particular flag pays homage to the Anglo-Saxons. It is believed that Anglo-Saxons used the White Dragon Flag in battles against the Celtic Britons - who themselves used the Red Dragon flag(now found in the Welsh flag). Evidence of the White Dragon can be found on the Bayeux Tapestry,in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Prophecies of Merlin, Stentons's Anglo-Saxon Britain and Barlow's The Godwins. This flag pre-dates any other flags and symbols currently used in England."
The evidence is on the discussion page of England.
Perhaps it should be added here? I'm neutral about the flag, but as there is some historical evidence to support the symbol of English/Anglo-Saxon culture, could it be added here? A cut downn version is fine, it probably needs a mention. Note that English-Nationalists are beginning to support this symbol. White43 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a couple of sentences relating to this symbol. White43 22:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide the citation for the page in Stenton's Anglo-Saxon Britain? To be honest, I didn't realise he had written a book under that title. Perhaps you were thinking of Anglo-Saxon England. In any case, unless you can provide a citation I shall delete your additions. TharkunColl 23:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't there a Welsh poem or story about the Red Dragon ultimately defeating the White? I'll have a bit of a search for it. Alun 06:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the story associated with Dinas Emrys, first mentioned in the Historia Britonum. The Historia Britonnum article gives a summary of it. It was later embroidered by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Rhion 07:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To qoute what I said on Talk:England on this very subject two days ago: The white dragon as a symbol of the English certainly occurs in Welsh folklore - Nennius, Geoffrey of Monmouth, etc. The question is, is this derived from a symbol actually used by the English themselves? It would be supremely ironic to adopt a symbol invented for the English by the Welsh! As it happens, on some old maps a white dragon is used as a symbol of Mercia, which was obviously the kingdom with which the Welsh had most contact, and they might have mistakenly assumed that it was a symbol used by all the English, and not just the Mercians. Wessex, as has already been noted, used a gold wyvern, which - heraldically speaking - is completely distinct from a white dragon. Those four legged dragons on the tapestry near Harold are interesting, but the question is this - in 1064, Harold was still only earl of Wessex, not king of England. Perhaps it was just his personal banner, or the banner of the Godwin family. Basically, we simply don't know. TharkunColl 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some sources, flags website, info about flag of Wessex and the White Dragon. One person claims that the flag of Wessex in the Golden Wyvern, and that Harold Godwinson fought under it at Stamford Bridge and at Hastings, another person states that the White Dragon is the standard of Wessex and that Alfred, Athelstan and Harold Godwinson all fought under it. It states Moves are now under way to once again raise the White Dragon flag, not as the flag of England, but as the flag of the ethnic-English community within England. I don't know how official the moves are, it can probably be used as a POV source, for example to verify that some people believe this or are trying to introcuce this idea. England, Wessex (White Dragon) claims that the white dragon is that of Wessex and gives this link and there's this as well. Much of this seems to be people trying to sell flags, one of the sites I came across in my search is a BNP site, so I wonder how much of this is just pushing a repugnant nationalism. The Serene Dragon only deals with the Red and White dragons fighting each other in the Welsh story, it states that this is from the Mabinogion story Lludd and Llewelys, which may be where I remember it from. So we have both White Dragon and Golded Wyvern for Wessex. The wikipedia article List of British flags states that the historic flag of the Kingdom of Mercia is A gold saltire on a blue field, which contradicts what TharkunColl says. The rulers of South Wales in antiquity must have had at least as much contact with Wessex as they did with Mercia, it's just across the Severn/Bristol Channel. The truth of this seems to be lost in history. Alun 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was merely adding to 'Symbols' that Dragons were used by Anglo-Saxons. So it could be considered a symbol of England/English. I think it was a little unfair to remove it from England AND English People. I'd had to further objections to it - in fact someone said to stick in a few sentences!! TharkUnColl - Yes, you're right, I meant Anglo-Saxon England!!! White43 11:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be replying to me, but I did not remove your edits from either of these pages. Alun 12:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The Mercians used a white dragon, but the yellow saltire was later attributed to the kingdom (it is actually the banner of St. Alban) - it occurs on the coats of arms of both St. Albans and Tamworth, the capital of Mercia. If we can draw a distinction, the white dragon is more a symbol of pagan Mercia, but it survived into the Christian period as well - and in any case, there is no reason why a kingdom can't have two totally different symbols, look at the English three lions and the cross of St. George. TharkunColl 11:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  So What are we saying here? Include something about the dragons or not? Mercia used a white dragon, Wessex did as well and of course Wessex eventually would dominate all South and West England. Harold used a Dragon at Hastings.... White43 11:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to have the greates knowledge of this TharkunColl. I'm happy to go with your explanation. I wonder if we should mention that  some people want to introduce a White Dragon flag as a flag for the English people? We can certainly verify this, though it could equally be considered a tiny minority opinion and therefore not worthy of comment. What do you think? It's worth mentioning that Owain Glyndŵr used a Golden Dragon (otherwise identical to the Red Dragon) on a white background. Alun 12:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was a sizeable minority who sought to introduce such a flag then it would be worthy of mention. So far, however, I have yet to see any evidence that this has not been the work of a single individual who happens to run his own website. TharkunColl 12:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Alun 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could it be worth mentioned that the Anglo-Saxons used a variety of Dragons in their banners? 2 or 4 legged? There seems to be consensus on this. Then it might be worth mentioning that someone has 'invented' a flag? If we consider that Wessex had the Golden Wyvern and that eventually Wessex dominated known England at the time, surely Dragons(Golden or White) play some sort of significance and are a symbol of old England? White43 21:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercia used a white dragon, Wessex used a gold wyvern. These two creatures are absolutely distinct heraldically. As for a flag of "old England", it is worth pointing out that the name "England" is derived from the Angles - therefore the Saxons (such as those in Wessex) were never English anyway. TharkunColl 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TharkunColl. That's a very odd thing to say. 'Saxons were never English anyway'? The united Germanic tribes referred to themselves as 'Anglo-Saxons' In fact, was is not Alfred who called himself 'Rex Anglorum vel Saxonum' ? The Anglo-Saxons became the English. Not the Angles alone. If we follow your line of thinking then Perhaps the same logic should be applied to Scotland (Gaels, Vikings, Angles, Britons, Vikings). Or France (Bretons, Alsatians, Gascons, Lombards, Occitanians, Corsicans). Or Spain......... White43 09:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the OED one of the first uses of Anglo-Saxon was to mean The Saxons of England or English Saxons, here's what it says: English Saxon, Saxon of England: orig. a collective name for the Saxons of Britain as distinct from the ‘Old Saxons’ of the continent. Hence, properly applied to the Saxons (of Wessex, Essex, Middlesex, Sussex, and perhaps Kent), as distinct from the Angles. But though English people are descended from Anglo-Saxons, thet are obviously descended from other groups that would not have been considered 'Anglo-Saxons. Though the words England and English are derived from the word Angle, it is demonstrably true that England and English also refered to Saxons, as the distinction between Angles and Saxons dissapeared as they began to see themselves as a single ethnic/national/political group. How this bears on the White Dragon issue I do not know. Alun 09:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The evidence is dubious about this. Where's your evidence? Various incarnations of Dragon flags were used. Bernard Cornwell on his site seems to think it should be a White Dragon on a green background! I do concur with others that this 'White Dragon' flag seems to be an invention by a few people who want to sell it as a 'United' flag of White England.White43 11:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my edit and I'm not supporting it, which is why I have tagged it , so I don't need any evidence. If it's wrong or there are no citacions to support it then we should remove it. Alun 12:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only just noticed this and have removed it until citations are forthcoming. TharkunColl 12:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to do it. Alun 12:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Dragon Flag of the English 

message: Why is there a link to the website of this party? It looks a bit like an endorsement by Wikipedia. Or are they considered uniquely representative of English people? If so, why did they get 0.7% of the vote at the last by-election held in England? 193.39.172.1 07:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find the link you are refering to, where is it? If the website is supporting an assertion in the text then it is a citation and needs to be there. What makes you think it is an endorsement? I can't find the link, but if it does appear to be an endorsement then it should be removed or reworded to emphasise that it is just one point of view. There's a link to the Campaign for an English Parliament, for example, but it's just a citation in support of the fact that such a thing exists. There's a big difference between endorsing something and having something on the page for the purposes of verification. If you are going to claim that it looks like an endorsement, then it should be more than just a link that is being used to support an asserion in the article. Can you pont out where in the article it is please? Alun 07:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "External links" "Can we talk about what it means to be English ?" The English Democrats Party. 193.39.172.1 07:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it certainly looks like nothing more than a promotion for the party, rather than a serious discussion of English identity. I'll remove it, if anyone has a problem with it they can give reasons why it should be in the English people article here. Good you mentioned it. Alun 09:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English Democrats Party

message: A think a List of English people within the 'Contribution to humanity' section adds to the article although there will no doubt be a debate about who to put here and who to leave only in the main list. But please see Wikipedia:Embedded lists. Wikipedia Style is to avoid the use of bulleted lists in an article ( except those in articles which are solely lists). Articles should try to describe their subject using prose and where a list is beneficial , use the  Serial Comma method. Lumos3 12:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if we need a list? A list is availabe at List of English people, and as you say it will always be open to debate as to who is most notable. I was a bit confused before as you stated that we shouldn't have a list at all, but just changed the style while keeping the list. I'm happy to include the list within the prose, though I find this more difficult to digest, and tend to skip long lists of people/things as think they tend to just clutter text and make it less ledgible, but this is just personal preference. If you want to revert I will not oppose it. Alun 15:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of English people  

message: Since when do ethnicities stop forming?  When a country such as Belgium or Switzerland, Spain or Russia and Germany is formed of composite former nation-states, do the newfound citizens not produce children that identify ethnically with their new nation?  For instance, I am British, French and Irish ancestrally in the USA.  I know that paternally, my ancestors came during the reign of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's one king.  Then again, there were relatives of the same surname who were there in the old Virginia colony, who fought against their master George III of Hanover's yoke and declared themselves American.  These remnants of 1776 still identify ethnically/ancestrally as American, rather than any UK-related fief under the Crown.  British, French and Irish  Protestants who were there in 1776 identify as American--but the Orange-Nassau/Pennsylvania Dutch and Netherlands/New York Dutch people still proudly claim their Continental roots.  I would say that is proof that old roots don't always hold water.  I have recently begun to shear off my British cultural allegiance, with an understanding of my own American heritage and am just fine adopting the mantle which better describes me.  Although 3rd generation American, I have differences with the modern (Germanophile) UK and disagree with a lot of how it is going.  In short, I would NOT want to live there now, in this day and age.  If you do not believe me, at least believe the United States Census Bureau.  People of the three major racial backgrounds apart from non-French Continental colonials present in 1776, are represented as: "American", "African American", "American Indian" in this map page...Maps of American ancestries  I would consider American nation-state status to be more legitimate in the way of providing an ethnicity.  Canada and other Commonwealth nations are still tied to the UK and it would be silly to pretend that the English in Canada have no identity, especially when contrasted to the French--even the Scots and Irishmen maintain individualist presences.  Éponyme 09:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite know what you are getting at, but I have been quite amazed that so may North Americans seem to consider themselves ethnically English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish. People in these countries consider Americans and Canadians to be just that, Americans and Canadians. I don't recognise any ethnic similarities between British people and North Americans. A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a South African guy who claimed that he was as British as me, I didn't contradict him as I didn't want to cause offence, but it was clearly nonsense, and no British person whould have recognised him as such. There are more differences than similarities between North Americans and British people, and culturally and socially we have very little in common. North Americans seem to be obsessed with descent and seem to believe that their ancestry somehow gives them English/Welsh/Scots ethnicity, even though it is quite obvious that most of them haven't got a bloody clue about British people. Alun 15:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I think he/she proved by referring to the modern UK as "Germanophile"! I can think of many, many ways to describe the British, but lovers of Germans...? Nah. TharkunColl 16:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American vs English or British ethnicity 

message: I have reverted this edit. I don't think there is any doubt that there are many ethnically English Jewish people, anyone who claims that there aren't clearly knows bugger all about English people and history. I can't imagine anyone claiming that Benjamin Disraeli, Herbert Samuel or Rosalind Franklin are not English, in the case of Franklin how many people actually know she was even Jewish, because up untill recently I didn't. As for English muslims, well there have been quite a few, not least Nasser Hussain and Sajid Mahmood. There's also Monty Panesar, who's not muslim I know, but the same reasoning applies. English ethnicity is not static, as is no other ethnic group, the indigenous English group itself is the product of various different groups merging over the course of several centuries, English people have always had diverse origins and have assimilated various groups over the last millenium or so. People are not excluded due to their religion or skin colour. Excluding these people makes this article look like an advert for the British National Party. Alun 13:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish and Muslim English people

message: There's a problem with the infobox that I don't know how to repair. --Gray Porpoise 00:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I have removed this paragraph. It is far too unequivocal. There is no research team at Oxford, this is in reference to a book written by a someone who runs their own company that will genotype your DNA for you. The data included in this book are not produced by a research team at Oxford as far as I can tell. The sources used to back up this information do not constitute reliable sources. I refer you to the section In science, avoid citing the popular press. This information is more than adequately covered in the article as it is. I see no merit in inflating the importance of this, it's in the article already, we don't really need to repeat it ad nauseum. Alun 05:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not need to provide verifiable information that criticises these books, but you need to provide reliable sources if you want to include the information. This requires that you either verify your information from the book itself or from published peer reviewed journals, see In science, avoid citing the popular press. Personally I think this information about the Iberian origin of western European peoples is more than amply covered in the article, it's only biology, it's not about ethnicity, we don't speak the same language, have the same religion or have any social or cultural practices in comon with the Spanish. I am sure that there are many eminent people that will criticise this work, and when they do this criticism can be included in the article alongside this information. The problem here is not with the information, but with the fact that it is not properly verified, it is the opinion of some journalists, that probably haven't even read the book, and who have probably misunderstood the science. This is why we don't use the popular press for verifiying scientific data. Again, these data do not provide any material that is not already covered in the article, any additional material sould be included in the appropriate place in the article and should not just be a repetition of informaton already included. Alun 05:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Accusations of vandalism: Please assume good faith, I understand your frustration, but all I am asking for is a more reputable source, as it happens I think these data are very interesting and have long known about the Iberian origin of western Europeans, though I think you are over stating it when you claim a particularly Spanish connection to the UK. Data supporting the Iberian origin of western Europeans do actually exist on several of the British pages, and these are supported by reputable sources, not by newspaper sources. It is insulting to call other editors vandals when they have attempted to engage with you regarding this situation. Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. No one here is doing that and you well know it, you are resorting to insults, please be aware that personal attacks are considered very poor form on wikipedia. Alun 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have ordered a copy of Sykes book from amazon and will be interested to read what the book actually says. I have also ordered this book The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story. We need to say what the book says, you are not doing that, you keep saying that this research needs to be included, but you are not including the research, you are including newspaper coverage of the fact that the book has been published, these are not the same things at all. Alun 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Depends what one is verifying. Newspapers are not considered reliable for science. For politics, social issues or to verify a POV they may be perfectly acceptable, but not for science. Alun 18:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What research team at Oxford?

message: Do we really need to list practically every organized religion that exists here ? I find that this along with other elements in this article tend to make the English look like some multi-ethnic, heterogenous population. I am not denying that there are numbers of ethnic English who may be Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, etc., but there numbers are very minimal compared to the majority who are of a Christian denomination (the traditional religion of English culture, particulary protestantism) or who are atheist/agnostic. I mean, you might as well as list aminism, paganism, etc. all here if going by the current list of faiths. I propose changing this section back to including those denominations traditionally associated with the majority of ethnic English people and English culture, not simply the religion of people living in the UK (as is what the current references in the section refer to). Epf 07:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the figures, but not many English people are proper Christians, they just pay lip service to it. Hardly anyone goes to church or engages in any form of religious observance. Most people probably never even think about religion, it does not exist. In truth the vast majority of the British population are irreligious rather than Christian. Numbers of practicing Anglicans may be about similar to numbers of practicing Muslims about a million people attend Anglican churches every Sunday, with a similar number of people attending Mosques.  In fact if there is a majority they are not really Christian but agnostic. The largest religious group would be the Anglican group rather than protestant as you claim, protestantism isn't a proper denomination and there are English Catholics. Indeed in England itself the Anglican Church is still the established Church, and it is only a semi reformed church, with elements of both Protestantism and Catholicism. As for the religions listed, these are probably the top six religions practiced by English people, they represent the main religions practiced in the British Empire and Commonwealth, and so do have some relevance. Personally I would remove the religion section, as with the related ethnic groups section, these sections are generally pointless and usually reflect oppinions rather than anything else. I tend to an inclusionist stance, whereby I tend to think that everything should go in, or nothing should go in. Indeed it's a moot point, English people have been around for about 1000 years (or 1500 depending on how one counts) but the Anglican Church has only been arround for about 500 years. To call Protestantism the traditional religion of the English is to exclude much of the history of the English people, both Paganism and Catholicism have played significant roles in English religious practice at different times. Alun 13:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well they are. If you don't think they are then you know bugger all about English people. Aren't you yourself both English and multi-Ethnic, you claim to be English and Scotts and to have Italian ancestry as well, sounds like a heterogeneous Englishness in a single person to me? Alun 13:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to a survey conducted by Prof. Ronald Hutton of Bristol University, and reported in his book Triumph of the Moon (OUP), there are approximately 100,000 Pagans (or Neopagans) in England. Given that there are only a million practicing Christians, that's a pretty substantial figure - especially as the overwhelming majority of these would be ethnic English, unlike, say, at least some of the Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus currently residing in England. TharkunColl 15:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, let's cite it and put it in. I'm all for including verifiable material. Alun 16:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Over at Welsh people there's been some dismay expressed on the talk page about the dominance of arguments about what the genetic work actually means. I've been thinking about this a bit and my conclusion is as follows (from talk:Welsh people): 
:I've been thinking a bit about this. My thoughts are as follows: We could split the article Immigration to the United Kingdom in two, a pre 1066 article called something like Prehisorical migration to Great Britain, and another article Historical migration to Great Britain (the UK part of the title is wrong because the article covers immigration that precedes the formation of the UK anyway). In the Prehistorical migration article we could cover all points of view regarding movements of people, from the mass migratory theories of Gilds/Bede and the Victorians through to modern archaeologists who doubt mass migrations and recent evidence from genetic research. Because this article would be about the movements of people, rather than about ethnic groups or nations we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with the endless speculation as to whether biological descent is the main component of ethnic identity. It leaves the people pages free to concentrate of culture, history, society etc, all we need do is include a short section outlining the basic theories regarding biological origin, with a more information redirect to the main article about movements of people. It would also help to shorten and focus the immigration article, which currently has a huge scope and covers things as diverse as Neolithic migrations to modern day immigration law (including discussion of things like illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. Of course such a big change would require a consensus from the editors of several pages, but I thought I'd mention it here first as Telsa has queried the necessity for so much attention to this topic on so many pages. This has been extensively debated on Anglo-Saxons, Briton, English people and Irish people as well as here (and probably on other pages as well. I think my solution could rationalise this quite a bit. What's the consensus on this page? Alun 05:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far there's been no response from anyone on Welsh people, so I don't know what that's supposed to signify. Alun 05:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Welsh people#Is genetics all there is here?|Is genetics all there is]]

message: These governments obviously assert that there are ethnicities accompanying their countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canadianethnicities2.png
Éponyme 11:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations by Washington and Ottawa

message: I've corrected the figure of c.60% for the more accurate of c.70% for R1b haplogroup (Paleolithic substrate). 60% is true only in the more "Nordicied" areas of Eastern England. (Source: ). --Sugaar 15:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English R1b 

message: Please cite that claim!  Is it related to the East India Company?
You know, we often focus too much on the Old World people in the Old World and the New World.  It would be interesting if somebody included Pocahontas as a New World visitor to the Old World, just for trivia's sake.  After all, I don't want to have a blind eye to such things.  I don't know what article that would belong to, apart from her and John Rolfe's biographies.  Éponyme 18:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there has been Chinese since before the C16. I think the sentence is referring to people from the Indian sub-continent. it needs to be reworded.Halbared 18:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeh, I was mistaken. The first Chinese came way after C16.Halbared 22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a deduction you make (without any real evidence). In fact it's very possible that the EIC only employed Indians in India and not in London. Those times were very eurocentric and quite racist too. It's also possible that a handful of Indians visited England then but can you document it? --Sugaar 02:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would think so.  What about monastic tales of "blue men" being in Ireland?  Would they not have made it to England as well?  Éponyme 12:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asians in England since the 16 C?! 

message: This might help!
About 34,000 people in Cornwall and 3,500 people in the rest of the UK wrote on their census forms in 2001 that they considered their ethnic group to be Cornish. This represented nearly 7% of the population of Cornwall and is therefore a significant phenomenon.
The source is from Cornish ethnicity data from the 2001 Census Malcolm Brown Cornwall County: []
Bretagne 44 17:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation for Cornish ethnicity 2

message: If anybody knows why Claret is also called Bordeaux and is so popular in England, then perhaps we should include Basques (e.g. Piers Gaveston).  Basques entered English society at the same historic time as the Irish.  I also find it odd that Normans should get monolithic mention, without Brittany.  The Duchy of Brittany was a feudal subdomain of English Kings from the Norman Conquest until the 16th Century, in one capacity or another.  Aside from that, we all know the British (Welsh) connection that practically makes them who they are by definition.  Saint-Pierre and Miquelon has a flag and coat of arms which match English ethnic cousins on the Continent, because virtually all of New France was founded by those "Frenchmen" once under English yoke (north and west coasts of "France").  England's arms supposedly include Aquitaine and Gascony as well as the well-known Normandy, but omit Brittany just as Ireland was ommitted (Wales still is, of course).  Shouldn't these ancient seals of the state have more relevance than the new fusion with the Scots, because the Normans succeeded to an Anglo-Saxon (Mercia-Wessex, in Winchester) state after all and that was it?
IMHO:
*Normandy has best ethnic transferance with England.  Both Scandinavian.
*Brittany has best ethnic transferance with Wales.  Both Romano-Briton.
*Aquitaine and Gascony has best ethnic transferance with Ireland.  Celtic/Basque connexions (hmm, Queen Mary's marriage with Spain).
All of these domains were of great post-Conquest importance, with added Scotland under Stuarts.  The union of the crowns under James (after the Tudor-Habsburg struggle) marked the divergence of a merely English people and it is from there, that a new British people was formed with participation in the Dutch and German dominions.  As far as I know and now think, the new "British people" is mostly a network of upper class/parliamentary aristocrats and their personal heritage.
I am proud to sport a 1/8th Aquitainian (although Huguenot) ancestor (one great grandparent, the other "French" one is Norman and Catholic).  I don't know further genealogy to find a recent Parisian (non-London) French (what is called France, but has English character) ancestor.  You know what side this ancestor would have fought on if Buckingham's war with France got serious.  This opens up a window to the past glories of the Angevin Empire for me because although I sport a Scottish colonial American wife, my own specific heritage does not leave the bounds of the three leopards of the Plantagenet dominions.
What some people should look at, is the French Wars of Religion maps.  Huguenots are numerous in Aquitaine/Gascony and Toulouse, both former Angevin areas.  One wonders if this Protestantism is an Albigensian Crusade relic, an Arian Visigothic vs Catholic Frankish relic or both combined with a culture of English resistance to the Capetians in the Hundred Years' War.
Also, if mentioning the Danes we shouldn't neglect the Norwegians (Manx people).  I think the Royal Website summarizes our English ethnic roots by explaining them dynastically and the personal unions that encouraged a compatible mix of people.  That is why I believe the "French people" are reasonably well related; to nitpick or split hairs on it is just ridiculous.
*None of this makes any sense you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about. Go read up all the population genetics studies, "The races of Europe" by Carleton Coon, the articles on race and ethnic group, and the history of these fucking places, and maybe you'll learn something for once. You really don't know shit about this issue, so either read that shit or get lost fool.
One wonders if we should not include these people as the related ethnic group called French, or should not include them as part of the constituent English people themselves.
Éponyme 09:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basques and more...