Talk:Briton/Archive 1

message: The last part seems more like the same nationalistic but mostly wrong stuff that was taught (or rather drilled in their skulls) in the first years of school of kids in France about "our ancestors the Gauls" about fourty years ago. The effective genetic research has used very low samples over small areas and even then, the densest area of the kingdom (I mean the east coast of England), according to their samples, had among the white population the heaviest proportion of germanic/scandinavian descended people, which allows to have heavy doubts about the idea that the "native population" is a majority in Britain.
:Please feel free to incorporate this information into the article as you see fit.
::I've tried to reword that so the implication that all modern Brits trace their ancestry to the Britons is less clear. --Saforrest 02:00, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
The commonly held view of the earlier 20th century that the Anglo-Saxons wiped out the Britons of England and forced the remainder out to Wales and Cornwall has been refuted by modern genetic analysis. The modern indigenous British have a definite link to their earliest ancestors. About 90% of the population of the United Kingdom today, or about 54 million people are matrilineally descended from women that were part of the original population of Britain 3000 years ago. Even in England, in which Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and later invaders played the most important role, about 50% of all men in that region claim patrilineal descent from the inhabitants of the British Isles 3000 years ago.
This paragraph is rather too unequivocal for my taste, especially since the debate about origins seems far from over (see  for evidence supporting the theory that the English are mostly descended from Anglo-Saxon invaders).  If no one else tackles the job of making that paragraph more NPOV, I'll try to do when when I feel like it. --Saforrest 02:02, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
If you have a look here, you can see evidence based on Y chromosome analysis for mass migration of Germanic (Angle/Saxon/Jute etc.) people (well at least men, as it's the Y chromosome) into England, but not into Wales. But it is important to remember that Y chromosome analysis only applies to male descent through one line. There is no evidence for example that people living in England don't get other genetic material which is not Germanic through female lines. There is no evidence that invading Germanic peoples did not inter marry with the indigenous female population. That would explain matrilineal descent from Celtic britons, but patrilineal descent through Germanic peoples (or if you like English Y chromosomes and Celtic mitochondria (which come from your mother)). The BBC story you reference suffers from the typical journalistic problem of being written by someone who only half understands the science. By studying only Y chromosomes we get only half of the story, it certainly doesn't support the concept of a genetic barrier between the Welsh and Germanic peoples. So everyone can be right, most Britons can be descended from Germanic and Celtic peoples, even from antiquity. Another thing about these studies is that they refer specifically to stable rural populations. The idea was to see if there is evidence of migration to Britain from the areas where Germanic peoples are thought to have come. To do this people were chosen for the study who had a long family history of living in the same rural village, to decrease the chance of getting people descended from later immigrants. This does not preclude the possibility of Celtic men having also been part of Germanic-British society. Mass migratios of English people to South Wales and Welsh people to English cities during the industrial revolution has almost certainly lead to even more and massive mixing of celtic and germanic genes in heavily populated areas of England and Wales. (I myself grew up in Wales and went to a Welsh school, I think of myself as Welsh, but I have grandparents from Wales, SE England and NE England, so 3 out of 4 grandparents are from England). We can never know whether celtic Y chromosomes which occur in English men have been inherited from celtic-Britons living in England from antiquity, or from recent post-industrial migrations. One should remember that given an average generational gap of say 25 years, which would be 4 generations in a century, that gives 40 generations in 1000 years and 60 generations in 1500 years (when Germanic peoples were at their most expansionist). Given that every generation has 2 parents we have a whopping 2 to the power of 60 (two multiplied with itself 60 times) people donating their genes to each of us over this timescale, does anyone seriously believe that all these ancestors avoided intermarriage with Germanic or Celtic Britons? It is the height of absurdity (bordering on the unscientific and dangerous concept of racial purity) to try to make any serious case for any genetic differences between English and Welsh people. The other thing to remember is that there was no indiginous British human population, all peoples that have ever settled in Britain have ultimately come from somewhere else, the first humans came from Africa not Britain!!!! Who knows how many waves of invaders there have been? Certainly there were people in Britain before the Beaker folk came in about 2000BC, then the Celts came in about 700BC, then the Romans, then the Germanic peoples sometime shortly after the Roman legions left.--Alun 05:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on briton Society 

message: I have in several places needed to replace the term large concentrations of Britons with large numbers of Britons. Concentration refers to people per unit area. Therefore a place like Gibraltar may have an extremely high concentration of ethnically British people, as relatively few people live in a very small area. A place like the US may have a far higher number of Britons, but spread out over a far greater area, and hence less concentrated. Let's make sure we all use appropriate words.--Alun 16:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Use accurate language

message: It is utterly unbelievable that the (alleged) distinctive appearance of modern people in various geographical regions of the British isles reflects an identical distribution of appearances in pre-Celtic times, so I've removed that sentence.  I'd also prefer to see some evidence that the river names are pre-Celtic, but it doesn't seem impossible.  --Andrew Norman 20:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be thinking of Cheddar Man, a paleolithic skeleton (some 13,000 to 9,000 years old) found in a cave. His mtDNA was found to closely match that of a local school teacher, it was later revealed that two children had identical mtDNA sequences to the ancient skeleton. Compelling evidence for modern British human descent, at least in part, from the very earliest modern human inhabitants of Great Britain. The inhabitants of Britain at the time of the paleolothic may or may not be considered ancient Britons, depending on one's point of view. Most people would think of ancient Britons as speakers of Brythonic Celtic languages, but it is unknown, and probably unknowable when Celtic languages, or even Indo-European languages spread to Great Britain. The traditional view would be that Celtic languages were introduced in the Iron Age, which is when there was a mass migration of Celts, this would make the ancient Britons very recent immigrants to Great Britain relative to Cheddar Man. On the other hand many modern archaeologists dispute that mass migrations occured at all, and there is even a train of thought that Indo-european languages may have been introduced into Europe and Great Britain at a much more ancient date. Francis Pryor in Britain BC (I stress that this is a very personal perspective) states that I can't see any evidence for bona fide mass migrations after the Neolithic....So the root tongue of what were later to develope into the languages of the Indo-European group must have spread a very long time ago indeed. and Barry Cunliffe in Iron Age Britain states that As archaeologists abandoned invasionist theories, so linguists began to reassess their evidence. The general position now, widely held by many scholars in the field, is that the Indo-European language was introduced into Britain perhaps as early as the early Neolithic period.... You may also be thinking of Lindow Man who was found in a marsh near Manchester, but he is a very much more recent inhabitant of Great Britain, being an Iron Age man, some 2000 years old. Alun 10:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The first Britons

message: I've rearranged and to some extent simplified this section, it's still very far from being perfect but at least it's in the right chronological order.
If anyone can make sense of these two sentences, please do and reinsert them:   Ancient Kings of the Britons written by Nennius, Gildas, and Geoffrey of Monmouth helped make rich histories of these people.  Over time, they became Celtic in culture, and it is in this time that the Picts became noted as a separate cultural entity in the north and east of what is now Scotland.; - the lists of "Kings of the Britons" are myth, as the linked article says.
Nice edit, it was a bit of a mess. Surely perfection, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, I mean it is a POV if something is perfect or not!!!!! I agree that these two sentences are a bit naff.--Alun 06:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfection's the destination but I don't think we'll ever get there!  I think on the whole, the article has too much of an air of 19th century "racial nationalism" - the Saxons pushed the Celts into Wales which is why everyone in Wales has dark hair and is musical, and everyone in England is blond(e) and respects liberty, and all that sort of guff.  I'm going to swap round the genetic and foreign conquest sections, since the first seems to me to be a discussion of evidence for the second.  I don't think it's really worth expending much effort on this entry, though - English (people) and Demographics of England cover a lot of the same ground in England at least, and Scottish people also has some information.  Probably better to delete or correct some of the most obvious POV/unreferenced material, and redirect people elsewhere if they want information about the Saxons, Celts, Picts, the history of the various British nations, etc.  --Andrew Norman 08:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, having seen the article at Immigration to the United Kingdom, which does a good job of covering all the details without indulging in speculation, I'm inclined to scrap most of this article.  Perhaps it should be limited to discussion of the Celts prior to the Anglo-Saxon invasions (i.e. the "ancient Britons"), with a mention of the modern usage to mean anyone of British nationality.  What do others think?  It would be a real pity to lose the genetic stuff, though - maybe it could be moved elsewhere?  --Andrew Norman 12:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think a simple statement that the term Briton is often used to describe pre-Roman native people from the British Isles, and in the modern world is used to to describe natives of the UK and their descendants living elsewhere. Personally I always refer to myself as British and think of Britons as the ancient pre-Roman and Roman native population. I agree it's a bit daft for people to start having arguements over ethnic ownership of what is essentially an inclusive word. A link to the Immigration to the United Kingdom article is a good idea. One problem is that it's not always obvious how much material is being covered elsewhere. Good work though. Maybe the genetic stuff can be put into the Immigration article somewhere.--Alun 12:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps we should leave this for a week or so, and then "be bold" if nobody else has objected.  As you say, especially on this sort of topic there are often several articles covering similar ground, and English (people) and Immigration to the United Kingdom are much better than this one (shame there isn't also an article for Welsh people, and that Scottish people is so inferior to the English article, though maybe I just haven't found the good articles yet!).  --Andrew Norman 12:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic and archaeological considerations

message: I may have been over-bold, but I've removed most of the stuff from the "foreign conquest" section about whether or not the Saxons killed all the Celts, or caused massive population movements, or they all married each other and got along swimmingly.  This is controversial and to a large extent still unknown, and it's one of those subjects where (as you can see from previous edits to this article) people have strong opinions on what "really happened" without necessarily having any evidence they are able to cite.  In accordance with Wikipedia:Cite sources I'd like to see some proper academic references before any of it goes back in.  --Andrew Norman 09:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Given that nobody has objected, and in light of the discussion above, I propose to remove most of the text of this article, keeping the introductory section and the "Modern usage" section, and directing people to the far superior English (people) and Immigration to the United Kingdom articles if they want the gory details of who invaded the islands and when.  I'll find somewhere for the section about genetics, probably in the Immigration article.  I'll do this in about a week, unless anyone makes a serious objection.  --Andrew Norman 20:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Tis done.  (The genetic stuff is now in Immigration to the United Kingdom) --Andrew Norman 10:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of most of the article

message: I don't like the word "Brit" myself, but it's widely used and not just by Americans - a quick search of the Guardian   and Telegraph   websites shows it being used in both papers (at opposite ends of the political spectrum) in the body of articles.  --Andrew Norman 10:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In Ireland, it is used and is definitely pejorative. Palmiro | Talk 14:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Brit is used pejoratively in Scotland too. British nationalists/Unionist politicians (Lab, Con, LD) are frequently referred to as "Brits" by their opponents.--Mais oui! 14:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brit 

message: I wonder wether this page is correct - I have never heard of the modern british refered to as britons in any context, they are the British, which is shortened to 'brits' often. I am tempted to say that the sources should be checked, but there are none, and where would one start to prove a usage.
of course the term britons does refer to the ancient tribes and peoples as is well presented here.
DavidP 13:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say that that the usage of the term Briton to identify modern britons is in very wide spread usage. "Brits" is largely an American contraction. To find a usage open any British newspaper any day of the week or search Google News for "Briton" nick 20:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Britons 

message: I don't think it's right that this is a disambig page rather than an article. I have just been doing some disamig link fixing and it's very obvious that there needs to be a article explaining that a Briton is an inhabitant of the British Isles, whatever his birth date. I can't work out from the comments when it became a disambig page, but IMO it needs to an article. nick 20:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I have been pottering about on this article for a little while, and there has been lots of totally misunderstood nonsense about genetic studies used to support rather racist opinions, like only Welsh or Celtic people can be Britons etc. The a similar sort of thing has gone on at Irish people. I have also been looking recently at English people, it's much better there as there seems to be a general (and correct IMHO) consensus for using English ethnicity as the model for the article rather than nationality. I think what we really need is an article on British people, which should take British ethnicity as it's model, this could substitute for a Briton article, while complementing the English people, Welsh people, Scottish people and Irish people articles. Would something like that be appropriate? Alun 09:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think so, though I think much care would have to be taken with semantics, even the English people article you mentioned links to "Britons" in the context of "Celtic Britons". (Looking again, this isn't even a proper disambig page. Cook is a proper disambig page; it directs you to articles about various kinds of "cooks", this one doesn't, it directs you to various articles related to the subject, but not actually about it). nick 11:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the link in English people. The correct article to link to is Brython. Briton and Brython are not synonyms, there is a discussion of this above when someone suggested a merge of the two articles. I think the English people article meant ancient Britons when it said celtic britons. I think the Brython article is currently the Ancient Britons article, it redirects there anyway. There is also a Brythonic languages article which is most illuminating. Maybe you are right, this isn't a proper disambig page. I'm not sure that it is trying to be. It gives definitions of the various meanings of the word Briton. The word Briton has so many different meanings depending on context, that it is difficult to have a single article on it. I think that is why it has been changed to redirect people to more specific articles. I think a British people article would be less contentious as it is less easy for someone to appropriate it. Alun 05:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I was trying to say orginally; I think Briton (the article) should be an explanation of "Briton" (the word), almost as it is, but not called a disambiguation page and with a bit more text. It can then point people in the direction of British people, English people etc. That would certainly save anyone having to fix all those disambig links ;) nick 21:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig? 

message: Now this is interesting I must say and warrants some discussion before being posted as what were posted are views that I have never seen before nor have read on other message boards.  Bretons considering themselves Britons?  Issues of note here would be that to be a Briton, the Bretons would need to be descended entirely or mostly from Britons who moved to Brittany during the dark ages, and that's highly unlikely as the numbers moving to Brittany would not have constituted a great amount.  What is historical is that the culture of those in Brittany was very similar to those in Britain at the time and this is where the commonality lies.  I am sure that most Bretons don't consider themselves to be ethnic British people.
The name Albion is indeed the/an ancient name for Britain, but so is Alba and there probably are more, including of course Britain which cannot be written off as being simply a gifted Roman name.  The term prefix Great was added, was it not, to differentiate between Britain and little Britain (Brittany)? Enzedbrit 23:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bretons

message: This is a form of weasel words:
*Many prefer to identify themselves as distinctly English, Scottish, Cornish,  or Welsh
Here's a quote from the avoid weasel words style guide: Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.
In fact this whole section about the use of Briton being sensitive strikes me as very POV, and rather uninformed, we need a proper reference, and for neutrality the oposing point of view, which is that the vast majority of British people are happy to be called British or a Briton. Alun 05:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So every other culture in England has had their culture included (in what?)?  Or is Cornwall somehow unique in that it's England and it's Cornwall?  Very arrogant.  Why even bother moaning here?  What is your political agenda?? Enzedbrit 22:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I have evidence, here it is Devolution, Public Attitudes and National Identity, in this report 83% of English identify as British to some extent, 69% of Scots identify as British to some extent and 79% of Welsh identify as British to some extent. Actually the fact I refer to is the POV of the section, are you claiming that the alternative POV (that most British people are not offended by the term) does not exist? If you are where is your evidence? I have presented my verifiable source and I think you cannot but agree that the reliability of the source is impeccable. I am under the impression we are talking about ethnicity not nationalism, if you do not understand the difference then I suggest you go and find out. There is no such thing as benign nationalism IMHO, I deplore all nationalism of whatever ilk, so you are barking up the wrong tree with your accusations of British nationalism, you are also showing your own colours as a nationalist, why do you presume that a Cornish nationalist is any less of a racist than a British nationalist? IMHO all nationalists are as repugnant as each other. I am a Morgannwg man, Cymro, British, European, and human does this make me a nationalist for all these identities? I would respond to your comment about the Cornish, but I have absolutelly no idea as to how it is relevant to this debate. Alun 04:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, one problem here is that the survey I found (a put in the text) claims that people identify more to their sub-state identities over British; though I wonder whether this info is more appropriate for the (cuurenlty poor) British aritcle anyway. I think the results are highly dependent on how you pose the quesiton; and I also wholehartedly agree with Alun/Wobble's view on nationalism, this isnt the place to bring up blinkered political ideologies. --Robdurbar 10:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is good about the ESRC report is that it gives data for two types of question. People are asked to identify exclusively as English or British, Scottish or British and Welsh or British, and the answers were generally in favour of their nationality, 38%  as English, 72% as Scottish and 60% as Welsh. When given the choce of one of five options (Welsh not British 21%, more Welsh than British 27%, equally Welsh and British 29%, more British than Welsh 8% and British not Welsh 9%) the answers were somewhat different, so the vast majority of Welsh people identify as Welsh and British, the same goes for Scotland and England. These are the data I have used because they allow greater freedom in identifying one's ethnicity. It just goes to show that people are really quite sophisticated in how they identify themselves, and most people do not seen to see ethnicity as an exclusive option. This is why I was suspicious of the original wording as it is obviously an attempt to introduce unverified POV into the article. I just needed to find a proper citation in order to verify the change I wanted to make. Alun 12:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Great source, need to find some time to read it now. Alun 05:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: A link on English identity, ethnic diversity and UK constitutional change ..dave souza, talk 20:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great source, need to find some time to read it now. Alun 05:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Handy link?

message: I really do not agree with how this source is used in the section "sensitivity around usage of the term" since the percentages taken from this source are being referred to as ethnic identification in this article. The report itself asked peoples national identity, not ethnicity/ethnic origin and therefore has nothing to do with how people identify themselves ethnically. This is obviously why so many people see themselves as British since there is no Scottish, Welsh, English ,etc. citizenship or nationality, only British. The source is useful, but just not when referring to peoples' ethnic identification. Im sure many of these respondents view their ethnicity as something different then nationality, especially if they are immigrants or descendants of immmigrants.Epf 08:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, it now reads Some people prefer to identify their nationality as exclusively English (17%), Scottish (31%), Cornish (N/A)[6], or Welsh (21%) not British,[7] referring to aspects of their own culture and origins which distinguish the peoples of Britain from each other.Alun 09:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Good to have the data, the problem is we can only compare like with like. If we are going to use the Cornish data, then we can only compare it to the data from the rest of the UK that is also exclusive (I mean English or British, Welsh or British etc.), which goes English (38%), Scottish (72%), Welsh (60%). This is well and good, but it would mean significantly increasing the length of the section, and ultimately going into a bit of detail about the methodology of the research. I am in two minds about it, on the one hand I think it would be good to get both sets of data in there for completeness. On the other I'm not sure the section is particularly relevant, and becomes less readable the more we go into methodology. It's the reason given for removing the whole genetic studies section I did from Anglo-Saxons and then Sub-Roman Britain, and I can see the point. I also think it is something of a digression from the main theme of the article. It's the sort of think that would fit very well in a British people article IMHO. Alun 09:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I think that is a very good idea, Epf. Probably a more accurate title than a British people article. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a supra-ethnic grouping though. Germanic only means people people who are ethnically German, like Germans and Austrians for example according to the OED, which I admit is not the font of all knowledge. Speaking a Teutonic/Germanic language does not make one ethnically Germanic. It is also far from established that there is any such thing as a Celtic ethnicity, this again is more a linguistic classification. I think these sorts of things can be ironed out in the article though, it's a question of including both points of view and providing verifiable sources. Alun 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I think the distinction between nationality and ethnicity here is too blurred for the majority to see a difference. --Robdurbar 09:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh and the Cornwall link doesn't work in my browser either. --Robdurbar 09:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a dead link. Alun 17:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at this and managed to find the info if anyone is still interested, it's a downloadable .doc, you can get it from here  and here's more info about the project, it's by Cornwall CC. Alun 18:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well in what sense are you using nationality? Cos for many people (the Scottish 'nationalist' party) Scotland/England/Wales and (though it pains me to say it) Cornwall are nationalities. Personally I think its all a bit petty, but I think most would not see these as distinct from ethnicity. Similarly, that most countries are nations is a pure nationalist myth --Robdurbar 09:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe they aren't blured to you, but you are an anthropologist, so it's bread and butter stuff to you, but it may be far less obvious to someone on the street being asked the question by a pollster. We aren't talking about citizenship, so the difference between nationality and ethnicity is more blurred in multi-national and multi-cultural states like the UK. Alun 09:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah good point but usually it is mentioned, as in the case with these statistics, if they are asking ones nationality or ethnicity. Your right about it being more blurred in a multi-national state like the UK and indeed citizenship isnt necessarily nationality. Many people though respond differently to ethnicity than to nationality depending on where they live and even in the UK's case, they are separate concepts. Epf 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it may well depend on the exact wording of the question, I don't think they say what it is in the report, they certainly say nationality in the report, but may simply have asked people to identify which group they belong to, and then just shown them a list. Alun 10:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "citizenship" is a sign that you're an incomer: us lot are all subjects! (boo) .. ;) ..dave souza, talk 17:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boo indeed, up the UR (United Republic?) Alun 12:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think we are all citizens now, it says British Citizen on my passport, and I think it was changed in the early 80's when Thatcher was bussy re-defining Britiain's relationship with it's Dependent Territores, see British Nationality Act 1981 and British subject. Alun 15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a relief, thanks, Can't have been paying attention at the time! :) ..dave souza, talk 18:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "devolution, public attitudes and national identity" 

message: Well, well, well...don't those famous Ancient Britons have their panties twisted in bunches?  No mention of Old King Cole?  Bah!  Éponyme 14:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? Whit yese oan aboot Hen? ...dave souza, talk 14:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celticist hate for Romans and Saxons 

message: i moved the list of famous ancient Britons to the Brython article (since that article is about the ancient Britons).
However, can we make a new list of Famous Britons - should not be too hard! While generally anyone from the UK could be put in there, I'm really thinking of people who are defiantly (or at least much more) British rather that English, Irish, Scottish etc.. or important in the creation of "British". --sony-youthtalk 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Britons 

message: As England became established, the "Britons" appear to have become assimilated or confined to the west coast, and Wales was arguably the last area they controlled, even though both Cumbria and Cornwall must have some claim. Snyder mentioned some early Anglo-Saxon king claiming to be ruler of Britain though I can't find the page: he mentions the Sovereignty of Britain being a theme seen as early as Gildas, becoming dominant in the 12th century Historia Regum Britanniae. Ferguson in The Identity of the Scottish Nation describes the Historia Britonum as being compiled by the Welsh Nennius to eulogise his own people: however the Wikipedia article suggests there's doubt about who was the author, so this needs examined. .. dave souza, talk 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical development

message: There are far more Britons in the world than purely the population of the United Kingdom.  To state 60,000,000 people as a maximum implies that when one leaves the UK, one ceases to be a Briton, and that when one migrates to Britain, one can realistically adopt that ethnic identity.  Ethnic British people make up the second largest group in the United States according to data on Wikipedia, the largest group in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and they form significant populations in South Africa and other European states.  
I've also removed the related ethnic groups of 'English, Welsh, Scottish' etc., as if one identifies as being of these groups, then one is a Briton by matter of historic lineage, ergo, by default.  It is redundant to state that Britons are related to English people, for example, when English people are Britons.  It would be as saying Europeans are related to Britons.
Enzedbrit 06:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Enzedbrit, I've returned the "related" ethnic groups since many (most even, depending on how you count it) of these people don't consider themselves as British by identity (~= ethnicity). Regardless, they are separate and related identities/ethnicities to British. I also removed "indigenous" since this may refer to Brython not "Briton" and certainly not were not the indigenous inhabitants. The population estimate was made up from the proportion of people in the British Isles who identify themselves as British (~28,000,000) and the number worldwide with British citizenship (~60,000,000). How do you arrive at ~110,000,000+ — ~130,000,000? --sony-youthtalk 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you restore them?  The article itself says that to be English or Welsh doesn't negate that one is also a Briton.  If one is English, Welsh or Scottish then by default, as I say, one is a Briton.  The same applies to European. We're all Europeans, like it or not.  One cannot be ethnically English, Welsh or Scottish and not also a Briton because these three nations make up Great Britain and we have always been Britons.  They are intertwined.  Whereas the identities are separate in that one can view onesself as one AND the other, or one and NOT the other, this doesn't mean that they otherwise separate.  To say that English and Britons are separate, for example, is really just confusing the matter.  The population of 110 to 130 million, as I clearly stated above, is of all Britons in the world.  If one emigrates from Britain, one doesn't cease to be a Briton.  There are something like 60 million Irish in the world, but only 5 million of whom live in Ireland.  If you look at all articles on Wikipedia of English, Scottish and Welsh people and where they are around the world, you'll come up with an estimated population of Britons, those people whose ancestors are the indigenous inhabitants of Britain, at the number that I have just restored. Enzedbrit 19:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied below. --sony-youthtalk 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: Britons are an ethnic group.  This cannot be disputed.  As they are a European ethnic group, the article about Britons should be included in the category of ethnic groups in Europe.  Before this is simply 'removed', I feel that there should be debate and justification as to why it is removed. Enzedbrit 19:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a permanently banned user called User:Eoganan. Please revert his contributions and immediately report him to an admin. Alun 06:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You have been reported to WP:AN/I. You use the same IP address as Eoganan, edit the same articles as him, have vandalised my talk page like him and use the same turn of phrase as him. I think you are him, something you have admitted on my talk page. Even if you are not him (which I seriously doubt) you have done enought trolling today to earn a block, if not an outright ban. Alun 06:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic groups in Europe