# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Genetics of the British and Irish people

## Maciamo

Population studies use historical, archeological, linguistic, place-name and surname evidences to determine the ethnic origins of the people found in a specific region. 

DNA tests now offer a more reliable way to confirm the previous hypothesis. Various research projects are under way, including several testing ancient or medieval DNA to see the genetic evolution of the studied population in time.

This thread aims at gathering and comparing the results and conclusions of each study available for Britain and Ireland. Here are a few links :

1) Excavating Past Population Structures by Surname-Based Sampling: The Genetic Legacy of the Vikings in Northwest England : aim at assessing the genetic impact of Norwegian Vikings in West Lancashire and the Wirral Peninsula. Comparison with samples from Norway, Orkney, the Shetlands, the Isle of Man, Cheshire, Anglesey, etc.

*Summary :* 

Percentage of Scandinavian admixture in modern populations (average with other studies cited) : Anglesey (10&#37;), Western Scotland (15%), Mid-Cheshire (21%), Western Isles and Skye (22.5%), Cumbria (37%), Wirral and West Lancashire (38%), Isle of Man (39%), Orkey (40%), Shetlands (42.5%).Comparison with medieval samples : Wirral (47%), West Lancashire (51%)

2) People of the British Isles : genetic comparison of the British population by region. The main purpose is medical, to create a map of genetic diseases in the UK. 3500 people tested in 30 different rural regions. The target date for collecting the sample is January 2009, so the final results won't be published before that.

3) Tracing the Phylogeography of Human Populations in Britain Based on 4th-11th Century mtDNA Genotypes : analysis of ancient and medieval British mtDNA samples to assess the importance of female migrations of Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Viking origin. Unfortunately, the conclusion isn't clear because of too limited samples. Results from Roman and early Saxon cemterries were merged under "Early Ancient" to add to the confusion.

4) Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration : attempts to find evidence of an Anglo-Saxon mass migration to central England (East Anglia and Midlands) by comparing Y-DNA haplotypes of Wales, central England, Friesland and Norway. 

*Conclusion* : samples from central England and Friesland are almost undistinguishable. proving that a massive proportion of central English people descend from the Anglo-Saxons. Conversely, samples in North Wales and Norway were quite different.

5) Genetic evidence for different male and female roles in the British Isles : attempts to estimate the impact of successive migrations on the genetic make-up of Britain, by comparing the Y-DNA, mtDNA and X-chromosome in Wales, England and Orkney to Ireland, Norway, Friesland, the Basques (closet assumed descendent of the Paleolithic Europeans), the Anatolian Turks and Syrians (bothassociated with the source population of the Neolithic migrations).

----------


## Maciamo

*Assessing the percentage of Viking paternal lineages in the UK and Ireland*

We know little of the ethnic composition of Britain prior to the Roman and Anglo-Saxon invasions. The Ancient Britons were supposedly all Celts, belonging to haplogroup R1b. But there might have been earlier Germanic migrations. Nobody is sure of the actual impact of the Angles, Jutes and Saxon on the present population of Britain. However, it is possible to estimate the share of the later Scandinavian settlers.

Based on the assumption that haplogroup R1a was brought to the UK "almost exclusively" by the Vikings, we could calculate the percentage of paternal "Viking blood" in the British Isles by multiplying the percentage of R1a relative to its proportion in the source population. Vikings raiding Britain and Ireland came either from Denmark (in Eastern England) or Norway (Scotland, North-Western England, Wales, Ireland).

*England*

At present the proportion of R1a in Denmark is about 12 to 15&#37;, against 27 to 30% in Norway.

To simplify things, let's say that England was exclusively Danish. There are 4.5% of R1a in England, 3x less than in Denmark. It would mean that 1/3 of the English have Danish Y-DNA. As Denmark has 45% of R1b, 30% of I1 and 5% of I2b1, it should be expected that about 15% of R1b, 10% of I1 and 1.5% of I2b1 in England are also of Danish origins.

This would leave about 52% of R1b, 4% of I1 and 3% of I2b1 of Anglo-Saxon or Celtic origins. Considering that the Celts were almost exclusively R1b and that the Anglo-Saxons came from Frisia, where R1b-S21+ is dominant, it makes sense to find such low percentage of I1 and I2b1.

In fact, the Netherlands and North Germany have a similar ration of I1 to I2b1 of 4 to 3 or 3 to 2, while in Norway the ration is about 35 to 1 and in Denmark 6 to 1.

Still in the Netherlands, compared to R1b the proportion of I1 is about 4.5 to 1, while it is 7 to 1 for I2b1.

If the above estimations are right, there should be 4.5x more Frisian R1b than I1 and 7x more than I2b1. So between 18% and 21% of the English males could be R1b of Anglo-Saxon/Frisian origins. This would leave about 32% of the population being R1b of Ancient Briton origin.

The rest of the population is made of Near-Eastern (E3b, J, G, K) and Balkanic (E3b, I2) lineages that came with the Neolithic farmers or during the Roman occupation.

*In summary, the population of England could be composed of :*

- 31.5% of Ancient Briton paternal lineages
- 11% of Near-Eastern paternal lineages
- 26.5% of Anglo-Saxon/Frisian paternal lineages (19.5% R1b + 4% I1 + 3% I2b1)
- 31% of Danish Viking paternal lineages (15% R1b + 4.5% of R1a + 10% I1 + 1.5% I2b1)

Because a low percentage of R1a in fact probably came with the Anglo-Saxons, it is likely that the above calculations overestimated the proportion of Vikings and underestimated that of the Anglo-Saxons.

One way of confirming the overall proportion would be to know the percentage of R1b subclades. S116- would be either Frisian or Danish, and should make about 55% of all R1b (i.e. 35% of the population). It will be very difficult to distinguish between Frisian and Danish R1b, as they are basically the same. But it does not matter so much as they are basically the same people.

R1b-S28+ is found at a higher percentage in Denmark than the Netherlands. However it is most common in Jutland, which was a source for both the Anglo-Saxon and Viking migrants. What is more, some S28+ might have come much earlier (1st or 2nd century BCE) with Belgic tribes from northern Gaul. 

The real native Briton subclades like M222, M167 or M37, or just R1b-S116+* should reach about 30% in England, with the highest concentration in the South and West.

*Scotland*

The case of Scotland should be easier than England. The proportion of R1a and I1 are almost equal, which would mean that almost all the Germanic blood there came from Norway, accounting for about 28% of the Scottish male lineages. There are under 6% of Near-Eastern lineages, and about 66% of Celtic lineages, with a high proportion of R1b-M222+.

*Ireland*

Ireland is more complicated because the actual number of Viking settlers was probably quite limited, but Germanic haplogroups account for about 25% of the male lineages. The reason is that many English people settled in Ireland, bringing with them I1, R1a and R1b-S21 haplogroups. To make things even more complex, Northern Ireland has a lot of fairly recent Scottish lineages, who also brought Norwegian R1a and I1a with them.

R1a makes up some 3% of the Irish population. With the same reasoning as for England above, Norwegian Vikings lineages should account for about 9% (with 3% of R1b and 3% of I1).

This is unlikely, because of the higher proportion of R1b-S21 (11%), I1 (7%), I2b1 (4%), but also R1b-S28 (6.5%), which could also be Dutch, Danish or Norwegian, or maybe also from an earlier Belgic migration (which is documented). Let's say that 3.5% of R1b-S28 is Belgic, and 3% came later.

This way we have 14% of R1b, 7% of I1, 4% of I2b1 and 3% of R1a. This pattern doesn't match at all the Norwegian population, but fits right in between the Dutch and Danish one, pointing at an admixture, like the one found among the English.

Many surnames in Ireland are also English, further confirming that a big part of the Irish population (about one fourth) is of English descent on their paternal side.

----------


## carpathia

> the Y-DNA of the Basque, Irish and North Welsh are closely related to each others,


 
this has been disproven by ongoing dna science..

the only thing all have in common is that they are all R1b as is 70%+ of the rest of europe..

the Irish and Basque populations are uncommonly isolated unlike continental europe, and both of those populations have a SNP associated with their own 'nationality' specifically.. the Welsh on the other hand share no SNP in common or with the other two groups.. north wales is also heavily E3b unlike either ireland/basques..

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> this has been disproven by ongoing dna science..
> 
> the only thing all have in common is that they are all R1b as is 70%+ of the rest of europe..
> 
> the Irish and Basque populations are uncommonly isolated unlike continental europe, and both of those populations have a SNP associated with their own 'nationality' specifically.. the Welsh on the other hand share no SNP in common or with the other two groups.. north wales is also heavily E3b unlike either ireland/basques..


Would you be able to provide some scientific references to buttress your points?

----------


## Maciamo

> this has been disproven by ongoing dna science..
> 
> the only thing all have in common is that they are all R1b as is 70%+ of the rest of europe..
> 
> the Irish and Basque populations are uncommonly isolated unlike continental europe, and both of those populations have a SNP associated with their own 'nationality' specifically.. the Welsh on the other hand share no SNP in common or with the other two groups.. north wales is also heavily E3b unlike either ireland/basques..


I said that their Y-DNA is closely related. I didn't say autosomal DNA. They have in common a very high frequency of Y-DNA hg R1b1b2a. That's all I am saying.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I said that their Y-DNA is closely related. I didn't say autosomal DNA. They have in common a very high frequency of Y-DNA hg R1b1b2a. That's all I am saying.


Yes, the Atlantic Modal Haplotype (AMH). As is well known, a number of Atlantic European populations are AMH, including Ireland, Wales, Brittany, Cornwall, parts of Scotland as well as areas of central-north to northern Portugal and central and northern Spain.

----------


## carpathia

> Would you be able to provide some scientific references to buttress your points?


 

all of europe falls into basically the same broad, genetic holding category of the general SNP's discovered, with a few exceptions-

to state the irish, welsh, and basque are closely or especially related is not true, as two have their own group-specific SNP, and certain historical regions within wales have unusually high frequency of E3b Hg.. and are not at all related, while the welsh R population does NOT share the basque / irish SNP's..

Basque= R / SNP M153/H102
Ireland(and irish-invaded western scotland) = R SNP M222

Wales = no M153, little M222, pockets of lots of E3b

(with conflicting ancestral SNP's it is totally inaccurate.. WRONG... to claim they are more closely related than other R populations..although this claim they are closer genetically to one another would SEEM logical, the current SNP information disproves the claim)

"Data obtained by "A Y Chromosome Census of The British Isles" show that the highest levels of E3b were found
in areas with a known history of Roman settlement. In addition to Southwell, these include Uttoxeter in the midlands, 
Dorchester and Faversham in southern England, and towns in Wales, like Llangefni and Llanidloes, where the Romans 
established forts and mined for gold and lead."

Another important fact..
S21/S28 claims of restricted regions of nothern europe also are largely concocted by those with a agenda to claim them as 'saxon' or 'viking'.. or such..

the 'studies' of these claims are fanciful and NOT peer reviewed and most originate from hobbysists,
particularly a guy named David Faux who has promoted this, and although he is a credentialed scientist, he has a website asserting he is provably paternally from THE CIMBRI TRIBE.. based only on his DNA which is standard, common, AMH R1b.. which is totally without any credibility.

You have to be careful.. really careful with some of these claims, as a few individuals make these far-fetched assertions that they cannot really support, BUT FOR PERSONAL REASONS WANT TO BE TRUE, and in a short time, lots of others are spouting these claims as fact, when their is no basis for it.

----------


## Chris

> Another important fact..
> S21/S28 claims of restricted regions of nothern europe also are largely concocted by those with a agenda to claim them as 'saxon' or 'viking'.. or such..


Could you give your source(s) for this fact, and/or elaborate?

----------


## carpathia

> Could you give your source(s) for this fact, and/or elaborate?


 
The commercial development of the S21 and S28 SNP's were initially the realm of a private for-profit company named ''Ethnoancestry''. The head of Ethnoancestry at that time was a credentialed Canadian scientist named 'David Faux'. 

I will not link to his still extant web sites as they are so filled with wild conjecture and extravagant claims that all it will do is lead some of those who see this to uncritically accept his assertions..

As stated before, Faux, who is a canadian of english origin, is so bold in his claims that he has a web page that insists, not merely offers a possibility, but outright asserts that he is paternally a descendant of the CIMBRI tribe of Jutland.. 
Google ' cimbri david faux ' if you want to see the literary works of these SNP's purveyor, but I will not post the link as it is absolute garabge to put mildly. The below quotes in Bold are also pronouncements from Faux's DNA testing business, and if you want the source google it, as I will not post links to this man. He is a discredited laughing stock in the community of geneticists.

_Now, back to the SNP's directly-_

*In 2005 Ethnoancestry located two markers which may break through what was once an impregnible barrier. With the prosaic names of S21 (R1b1c9) and S28 (R1b1c10) these markers on the Y chromosome, known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), .."*

Faux had Almost immediately proclaimed that -
*"To date it appears that S21 in Britain marks "Anglo - Saxon"* 

and that,

*S28 is seen further east and in England only in what is known as the "Danelaw" which appears to mark Danish Viking in those who possess it.* 


The S28 marker was developed by his company from his own personal genetic study AFTER he personally tested ANCESTRAL (not 'derived' / positive) for the hyped S21 SNP.
Faux reportedly 'commisioned' a study on himself, resulting in S28, at the Ethnoancestry Lab, to find his own 'elite' SNP and to build himself a R1b 'clade' to prove his ''cimbri hypothesis'', 
and very convieniently it *'turned out'* to establish that the bearer (Faux himself) was a 'danish viking descendant' per his own web page pronouncement, PRIOR to ANY STUDY being undertaken. 

*Never mind the absurd connotation of Faux's equation of differing SNP's for the ''Anglo-Saxons'' and the ''Danelaw Vikings'', who are the SAME SOURCE POPULATION from the same locale!!* 

Faux had already hyped S21 as the Danish/germanic SNP, and when his own crazed ''I am a Cimbri" assertion was threatened by his 'ancestral' / negative result, he had to differentiate a germanic/continental origin for His OWN S28 ancestral result to maintain his Cimbri nonsense, but NOT anger the S21 crowd, 
so he built a theory/study that satisfied both groups pre-conceptions but was factually totally invalid. 

The study that was completed on these SNP's was comical, if not for the fact that it facilicitated a marketing campaign that sold a lot of these SNP test, under the assertion that they offered insight into a localized paternal ancestry origin for the bearer. 
The 'study' Faux offered up utilised the self-funded study participants that had already paid for their own tests and offered him their biographical details/origin.. 
As most of these original particpants were american or canadian, 
Almost all originated in North West Europe, 
and a majority had roots in the British Isles and many likely had shaky factual knowledge of the actual region.

These were allowed to stand as the representatives of the ENGLISH, DANISH, GERMAN, FRISIAN..etc. sources in the study, 
while the other regions that Faux had a interest in minimising as bearers of this SNP were allowed to be taken from a very limited sampling of several european source populations not historically connected to the 'Cimbri theory' that Faux had bestowed upon himself. 

This resulted in a scheme where the near entirety of Faux's contingent of S21 derived self-funders were combined with the remainder of his self-funded N/W Euro R1b, but non-S21 derived, to reach high levels of S21 ancestry found proportionally for the supposedly 'Cimbric-related' populations including the English. 
The S21 SNP, and later S28, was already fanatically hyped by ethnoancestry during this period as the ""R1B germanic SNP", and the study to undergird the claim was undertaken after a pool of other 'derived' participants had been assembled. 
A legitimate study would reach its conclusions *AFTER* a study had been properly devised and executed to support the thesis, *not before hand*. 

In contrast, the allegedly non-cimbri related euro populations were very small contingents of participants that included all R1b results from those populations outside of northwest europe and the claim was that the freq. of occurance diminished significantly..
These were partially self-funded participants but much smaller population samples for these locales.

*So,* although I cannot absolutely assert that Faux manipulated the studies with a eye toward selling regionalized continental european SNP tests, 
1)I can tell you that he promised in advance what the tests would show his customers, who also paid their own way, 
2)He privately controlled all the test results in advance, and assembled them from results his own company had performed, in a frankenstein-like creation of a paper that was engineered to look like a scientific study,
3)he has a history of making bizarre and unprovable assertions about his own ancestry reaching back to tribal pre-contact jutland that are not credible.

While S21 / S28 ARE a significant portion of the Northwest european gene pool, trying to equate these SNP with specific cultures in exclusivity is not supported, nor are the national distributions which have never been funded to create such a SNP snapshot, across the EU.. 

From a funding standpoint, the sources selling these tests would not be able to undertake such a study incorporating randomly selected, but later providenced participants, across a wide geographical range, even if 100% of their profits from these test were used to fund them.. the travel / lodging costs required alone would bankrupt a company such as ethnoancestry. 
Any such undertaking would be in the millions of euros to accomplish properly, it would require massive lab resources, and no one has ever done it. Those offered assurances as to these SNP establishing certain Geographical boundaries/population frequencies are the sources selling the SNP testing, and if you take that as what it truely is... it is advertising.

----------


## Chris

Thanks for that - very interesting. (I know nothing about the technicalities of this stuff, and am very interested in the 'so what' factor, having had my deep subclade results). What conclusions do you draw, as opposed to the above?

Maciamo - you're also very knowledgeable it seems to me; what's your view?

----------


## Maciamo

> Another important fact..
> S21/S28 claims of restricted regions of nothern europe also are largely concocted by those with a agenda to claim them as 'saxon' or 'viking'.. or such..


S21 and S28 are very different. S21 is common in northern Europe, and especially around the Netherlands and northern Germany. On the other hand, S28 is most common around the Alps, Italy, France, Belgium and southern Germany. What is amazing is how little S28 there is in northern Germany. At present it is almost non-existent. So S28 is in no way associated with the Saxons or the Vikings.

----------


## martin parra

> S21 and S28 are very different. S21 is common in northern Europe, and especially around the Netherlands and northern Germany. On the other hand, S28 is most common around the Alps, Italy, France, Belgium and southern Germany. What is amazing is how little S28 there is in northern Germany. At present it is almost non-existent. So S28 is in no way associated with the Saxons or the Vikings.


 
I am tested for the R dna s21+.. my family is from mexico but before then to spain. I match exact the VILLA from spain in testing- not from germany, VILLA family is spain.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults

of all of the study most are from angland, so I am also from the english, no?

I count of family tree S21+ study total is 744 people.

369 english people from america, 
212 other british people living inside of england still, 
and only 158 people so far across all of the europe on this study. 

almost all s21 totals is of the english origin.

I think this comes not from germany but from england, as the results shows. I would like to find how my family go from england to spain, then mexico, thank you my friends

----------


## Chris

> almost all s21 totals is of the english origin.


As far as I have discovered, the S21 population of England originated in northern Europe, mainly northern Germany and Frisia. So S21 isn't of English origin.

----------


## Maciamo

> I am tested for the R dna s21+.. my family is from mexico but before then to spain. I match exact the VILLA from spain in testing- not from germany, VILLA family is spain.


Interesting. You can be descended from Vandals, Suebi or Visigoths who settled in Spain in the 5th century. From which part of Spain did you family originated before moving to Mexico ?




> almost all s21 totals is of the english origin.


That's only because commercial tests are more popular in the British Isles than elsewhere in Europe. The country with the highest percentage of S21 is actually the Netherlands.

----------


## martin parra

> Interesting. You can be descended from Vandals, Suebi or Visigoths who settled in Spain in the 5th century. From which part of Spain did you family originated before moving to Mexico ?
> 
> 
> 
> That's only because commercial tests are more popular in the British Isles than elsewhere in Europe. The country with the highest percentage of S21 is actually the Netherlands.


I am mostly of the indians of mexico I am not white, so I do not know if spain but this is the home of the Parra familys origin.

I do not see the europeans having part in test being of this type.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults

why are the white american used in these test only, instead of europemen ? 

all the many tests are done on these white americans, but not on the europeans instead. 
This is why I think, these test show of americans that are from england not the germans to this type of genes. Only the study on europe can show this, I think. Where is the study on this gene that can be found complete of europeans? thank you.

----------


## dnabuff

Your MtNa is J? That indicates Phoenicians and Arabs and some Greek

----------


## Wilhelm

> Your MtNa is J? That indicates Phoenicians and Arabs and some Greek


Actually Not. I think you are confusing dna-Y J, with mtDNA J.
The mtDNA J distribution in Europe is as follows :

*J** = Ireland - 12%, England-Wales - 11%, Scotland - 9%, Orkney - 8%, Germany - 7%, Russia (European) - 7%, Iceland - 7%, Austria-Switzerland - 5%, Finland-Estonia - 5%, Spain-Portugal - 4%, France-Italy - 3%*J1a* = Austria-Switzerland - 3%*J1b1* = Scotland - 4%*J2* = France-Italy - 2%*J2a* = Homogenously spread in Europe. Absent in the nations around the Caucasus. Not known to be found elsewhere.

----------


## rms2

> Actually Not. I think you are confusing dna-Y J, with mtDNA J.
> The mtDNA J distribution in Europe is as follows :
> 
> *J** = Ireland - 12%, England-Wales - 11%, Scotland - 9%, Orkney - 8%, Germany - 7%, Russia (European) - 7%, Iceland - 7%, Austria-Switzerland - 5%, Finland-Estonia - 5%, Spain-Portugal - 4%, France-Italy - 3%*J1a* = Austria-Switzerland - 3%*J1b1* = Scotland - 4%*J2* = France-Italy - 2%*J2a* = Homogenously spread in Europe. Absent in the nations around the Caucasus. Not known to be found elsewhere.


Aside from that, dnabuff was asking a question of a man who cannot answer because he has been banned (for good reason) and about a post from back in July.

But I think you are right, anyway.

----------


## Eireannach

New here. I'm L21 from Ireland.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

Also R-L21 from Alto-Minho, NW Portugal.

----------


## Eireannach

> *Assessing the percentage of Viking paternal lineages in the UK and Ireland*
> 
> *Ireland*
> 
> Many surnames in Ireland are also English, further confirming that a big part of the Irish population (about one fourth) is of English descent on their paternal side.


Many surnames in Ireland are English because when they were translated from Gaelic into English, the English translators gave names that sounded similar to English names e.g. Ó Coileáin is anglicised to the english name Collins, hence there are many Collins in Ireland, most of whom are indigenous.

Also a name like Smith is common in Ireland but this again is mostly as a result of translating Irish names into english. Mac an Gabhain (literally translates as the son of the smith) was changed to Smith and and also the anglicsized MacGowan.

----------


## Maciamo

> Many surnames in Ireland are English because when they were translated from Gaelic into English, the English translators gave names that sounded similar to English names e.g. Ó Coileáin is anglicised to the english name Collins, hence there are many Collins in Ireland, most of whom are indigenous.
> 
> Also a name like Smith is common in Ireland but this again is mostly as a result of translating Irish names into english. Mac an Gabhain (literally translates as the son of the smith) was changed to Smith and and also the anglicsized MacGowan.


Nevertheless there is a small, but substantial percentage of Irish people who are clearly of English descent. The English have started settling in Ireland since Norman times. Most of the big landowners from the 16th century until the 19th century were English.

----------


## Eireannach

> Nevertheless there is a small, but substantial percentage of Irish people who are clearly of English descent. The English have started settling in Ireland since Norman times. Most of the big landowners from the 16th century until the 19th century were English.


Of course there is a percentage of Irish people of English descent. But it would be no where near 25%. Most of the big landowners were absentee landlords or arisitocratic planters who did not intermarry with any native Irish. They were and in some cases still are bascially English people born in Ireland and adhere to English customs. Even to this day (although their numbers are so tiny) many of these send their children to school in England.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

I've read somewhere that the percentage of Irish folk of English descent totals about 10-15%.

----------


## Trollhattan

> *In summary, the population of England could be composed of :*
> 
> - 31.5% of Ancient Briton paternal lineages
> - 11% of Near-Eastern paternal lineages
> - 26.5% of Anglo-Saxon/Frisian paternal lineages (19.5% R1b + 4% I1 + 3% I2b1)
> - 31% of Danish Viking paternal lineages (15% R1b + 4.5% of R1a + 10% I1 + 1.5% I2b1)
> 
> Because a low percentage of R1a in fact probably came with the Anglo-Saxons, it is likely that the above calculations overestimated the proportion of Vikings and underestimated that of the Anglo-Saxons.


 
I have read " indigenous English " is a controversy subject in England.

I've suspected indigenous population of Celtic-Breton origin accounts for a significant percentage of English genetics.I think it's native Bretons lost their ethnic identity to the Anglo-Saxon majority.It's common belief among English nationals I met online,that English are predominately " Germanic " closely related to Dutch & Scandinavians & Germans.A few even told me that they do feel kinship toward those European peoples.

----------


## Chris

> I have read " indigenous English " is a controversy subject in England.
> 
> It's common belief among English nationals I met online,that English are predominately " Germanic " closely related to Dutch & Scandinavians & Germans.A few even told me that they do feel kinship toward those European peoples.


The vast majority of Brits don't care or have an awareness of their roots, other than they're 'English, Scots' etc. What does that mean? They have no idea other than the modern manifestation, which is often a contrived, tourist board version. If you said that the English language had Germanic roots (i.e. not just Germany, but also Frisian etc) they would be amazed. Pre-Norman conquest cultural and linguistic heritage is virtually ignored or at worst, suppressed by the establishment.

----------


## r1bdude

> Of course there is a percentage of Irish people of English descent. But it would be no where near 25%. Most of the big landowners were absentee landlords or arisitocratic planters who did not intermarry with any native Irish. They were and in some cases still are bascially English people born in Ireland and adhere to English customs. Even to this day (although their numbers are so tiny) many of these send their children to school in England.


Niall of the nine hostages is the 5th century father of 12 percent of the male population of ireland and his mother was queen of england and a saxon. I think that the genetics will bear out a huge british ancestry amongst the irish. I think 25 percent is correct for long range ancestry. I think the poster saying that two groups who lived side by side for a thousand years and didn't interbred counters common sense.

----------


## Starship

I know the Normans conquered large tracts of the Eastern side of Ireland from the 12th century on, they certainly bred with the natives and became in time as the saying goes "more Irish than the Irish themselves". Not sure about this whole genetics thing but would the Normans count as British, French or Nordic?

----------


## rms2

> I know the Normans conquered large tracts of the Eastern side of Ireland from the 12th century on, they certainly bred with the natives and became in time as the saying goes "more Irish than the Irish themselves". Not sure about this whole genetics thing but would the Normans count as British, French or Nordic?


So far, the Normandy Y-DNA Project is a small project, in part because membership is restricted to those who can actually trace their y-dna lines to Normandy or the Channel Islands, but here is the Y-DNA Results page:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults

----------


## Maciamo

> Niall of the nine hostages is the 5th century father of 12 percent of the male population of ireland and his mother was queen of england and a saxon. I think that the genetics will bear out a huge british ancestry amongst the irish. I think 25 percent is correct for long range ancestry. I think the poster saying that two groups who lived side by side for a thousand years and didn't interbred counters common sense.


I think this is a good example of how some favoured lineages (e.g. a particularly prolific royal family) can quickly spread their Y-DNA (1500 years is a relatively short time). In this case, I want to stress that 12% of Irish men have the same Y-DNA as Niall Nóigiallach. It doesn't mean that he is the ancestor of 12% of men or 24% of the population, but that he has probably left traces of autosomal DNA in 99% of the Irish. In other words, about any Irish is bound to have some English DNA.

----------


## Eireannach

Re Niall of the nine hostages:

Niall was the only son of Eochaidh's (pronouced Ucky for those of you who cannot speak Irish) second wife who was a saxon. He had 4 half brothers from Eochaidh's first wife (who was Irish) who all created dynasties in Ireland (my own family being allegedly descended from Fiachra who gave his name to the Ui Fiachrach Muaidhe of north connacht). Niall, his brothers and his father are all descended from the legendary semi-mythical Conn CeCathach. 

However, Niall's mother is more likely not saxon as chronologically it doesnt make sense. She could probably have been a Romano-Briton. How it can be inferred from this that all Irish have some English dna is beyond belief.

----------


## Woden

Greetings Maciamo and other forum members!

Thanks Maciamo, I enjoy your website about European haplogroups and I look back for updates.

I would be grateful if you could fill us in on what we presently know about the ancient origins of the English.

Which haplos are associated with which migrations into Britain and with which ancient ethnicities? In what proportions are they present in England today?

My guess is that East Anglia where I am is more Germanic.

I am aware that Walter Bodmer is heading the People of the British Isles Project to investigate British origins and I eagerly await those results.

Btw I tend to agree with you that R1b is IE. You seem to say that the Celts came to England from southern Germany and the Germanics from northern Germany and Denmark. Do we know when these Celts last had common ancestry with the R1b portion of the Germanics?

I am guessing that the R1a in Britain is Scandinavian. Do we know when it last had common ancestry with Slavic R1a?

There seems to be a smattering of Near Eastern haplos here too.

What about the female line? Can we say to what extent it is Celtic or Germanic?

Any info will be much appreciated!

Cheers!

----------


## Eochaidh

> Many surnames in Ireland are English because when they were translated from Gaelic into English, the English translators gave names that sounded similar to English names e.g. Ó Coileáin is anglicised to the english name Collins, hence there are many Collins in Ireland, most of whom are indigenous.


I'd like to add to what Eireannach has said.

I lost the source, but I have read as part of my family research, that Irish families living within the English Pale (the counties around Dublin) where required by the government to use English names. Most of them didn't, but many did.

I was lucky enough to find the records of the Catholic Parish (insie the Pale) in which my ancestors were baptized and there is a large percentage of English sounding names. These records are from the late 1700's and it is not likely that these people would have been English, but rather Irish who changed their name as Eireannach has said.

----------


## Mikewww

> Nevertheless there is a small, but substantial percentage of Irish people who are clearly of English descent. The English have started settling in Ireland since Norman times. Most of the big landowners from the 16th century until the 19th century were English.


Yes, there is no doubt that since times of Cromwell, the English have impacted Irish genetics. How much I don't know, since the population was already quite large. Another interesting question is, Y-DNA-wise, how many of the English landowners in Ireland were just Germanized old Britons?

----------


## Mikewww

> *In summary, the population of England could be composed of :*
> 
> - 31.5% of Ancient Briton paternal lineages
> - 11% of Near-Eastern paternal lineages
> - 26.5% of Anglo-Saxon/Frisian paternal lineages (19.5% R1b + 4% I1 + 3% I2b1)
> - 31% of Danish Viking paternal lineages (15% R1b + 4.5% of R1a + 10% I1 + 1.5% I2b1)


What impact do you think the Normans (et al) had on England? I add the "et al" because William recruited his invasionary force from all over France. Also, the Normans were already mixed as of 1066 AD. 

I recognize the population of England was large at the time of the invasion, but the Norman (et al) control of land across the Isles must have left a genetic impact of some significance.

----------


## Wilhelm

> What impact do you think the Normans (et al) had on England? I add the "et al" because William recruited his invasionary force from all over France. Also, the Normans were already mixed as of 1066 AD. 
> 
> I recognize the population of England was large at the time of the invasion, but the Norman (et al) control of land across the Isles must have left a genetic impact of some significance.


No, the normans were very minoritary, they did not have a significant impact.
According to Carpenter they were 8,000

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> No, the normans were very minoritary, they did not have a significant impact.
> According to Carpenter they were 8,000


The Germanics and some other Nordic groups had a far greater impact than the Normans did in Britain 

As a comparison, I suspect that the Normans effected the Sicilian genome more than the British, although that was also quite minor.

----------


## rms2

> No, the normans were very minoritary, they did not have a significant impact.
> According to Carpenter they were 8,000


I suspect they had a bigger impact than you think. It is fairly well known that in ancient and medieval times the offspring of the wealthy, landed classes had a much greater chance of survival to breeding age than did the offspring of free peasants and especially serfs.

I'm not implying the Normans "replaced" the native British, but I think they may have had a significant impact just the same. Besides their legitimate children, who, as I mentioned, had a better-than-average chance of survival, many Norman lords no doubt fathered quite a few illegitimate sons on the local maidens.

----------


## Eochaidh

> I recognize the population of England was large at the time of the invasion, but the Norman (et al) control of land across the Isles must have left a genetic impact of some significance.


In the Irish part of the Isles, the Norman invasion is now being called the Cambro-Norman invasion, where the Cambro refers to Wales. This is because the Norman knights who invaded Ireland, where from the Welsh Marches or the English-Welsh border. They had already intermixed with the Welsh and many of their support troops where Welsh.

So much of the new Norman DNA wasn't new at all.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I suspect they had a bigger impact than you think. It is fairly well known that in ancient and medieval times the offspring of the wealthy, landed classes had a much greater chance of survival to breeding age than did the offspring of free peasants and especially serfs.
> I'm not implying the Normans "replaced" the native British, but I think they may have had a significant impact just the same. Besides their legitimate children, who, as I mentioned, had a better-than-average chance of survival, many Norman lords no doubt fathered quite a few illegitimate sons on the local maidens.


I understand what you are saying but I doubt ~ 8,000 Normans made a really significant impact, regardless of the circumstances. And, the Normans were already well-mixed with native French when they arrived in Britain.

As a comparison, let's take a look at the Germanic invasions of Iberia. There were between 30,000 to 40,000 Suevi and they ruled the northwest for approximately 200 years, until defeated by the Visigoths and incorporated into the greater kingdom. The Visigoths also totaled in the tens of thousands. They controlled most of Iberia for 300 years. Then, of course, you had a fair number of Vandals... So, with all of these Germanics running around for three plus centuries you would expect Spain and Portugal to have a high percentage of Germanic / Nordic markers, yes? Not quite, both Spain and Portugal average out to a fairly modest 15% or so Germanic / Nordic, Y and mtDNA combined.

----------


## rms2

Well, right now in the Normandy Y-DNA Project the most frequent subclade is R-L21 (R1b1b2a1b5 or R1b1b2a1a2f). That could change, since it is a new project, and membership numbers are still relatively small. But with the y-dna profile in Northern France not all that different from that right across the Channel in Britain, it makes things difficult to sort.

I've heard different figures for the numbers of Normans who settled in Britain, with 8,000 being in the very low range. There could have been three or four times that number. I don't think their circumstances paralleled those of the Germanic invaders in Iberia half a millennium earlier. The Normans controlled a much more advanced military, administrative and ecclesiastical system than did the various motley tribes of Germans in Iberia, and the Normans were just a short boat ride across the Channel from their original homeland.

Again, I wasn't positing "total replacement" of the native Brits/Anglo-Saxons by the Normans or anything even close, but I do think the Normans (and their compatriots, the Bretons and the Flemish) made an impact, probably a fairly sizeable one.

----------


## Wilhelm

> The Visigoths also totaled in the tens of thousands.


The Visigoths were around 200.000 (all historians agree with this) and they all ended up blending with the native hispanoroman population

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> The Visigoths were around 200.000 (all historians agree with this)


Yes, you are right...

----------


## Wilhelm

> Well, right now in the Normandy Y-DNA Project the most frequent subclade is R-L21 (R1b1b2a1b5 or R1b1b2a1a2f). That could change, since it is a new project, and membership numbers are still relatively small. But with the y-dna profile in Northern France not all that different from that right across the Channel in Britain, it makes things difficult to sort.


The R-L21 can also be from the Celts, Anglo-Saxons and scandinavians




> I've heard different figures for the numbers of Normans who settled in Britain, with 8,000 being in the very low range. There could have been three or four times that number.


These figures would still be minoritary, what was the population of Britain at the time of their arrival ?




> I don't think their circumstances paralleled those of the Germanic invaders in Iberia half a millennium earlier.


Take in account the Visigoths ruled and controlled all of Iberia , the Suevi had their Kingdom in all the NW of Iberia, the Franks controlled the Spanish March....The Visigoths were the seed for the creation of Spain

----------


## rms2

Yes, and all of them could have had a significant impact, but none of them had the sort of sophisticated military, administrative, and ecclesiastical system the Normans had.

I would still argue that the Normans made a sizeable contribution to the y-dna of the British Isles, since they established a lasting aristocracy there.

----------


## Maciamo

A new PCA analysis by O'Dushlaine et al. shows that the Scots are genetically intermediate between the Irish and the English population. 

The FRAP analysis reveals, quite surprisingly, that the Irish, Scottish and English strongly cluster together, and are indeed almost undistinguishable compared to the three other populations tested (Portuguese, Swedish and Bulgarian). The sharp difference between British and Swedish markers shows the little influx of Scandinavian genes in the British Isles. It also contradicts the idea that the English are mostly of Germanic descent. This study concludes that the English have only marginally more Germanic blood than the Irish (a matter of of 5-10% more).

----------


## Invictus_88

> A new PCA analysis by O'Dushlaine et al. shows that the Scots are genetically intermediate between the Irish and the English population. 
> The FRAP analysis reveals, quite surprisingly, that the Irish, Scottish and English strongly cluster together, and are indeed almost undistinguishable compared to the three other populations tested (Portuguese, Swedish and Bulgarian). The sharp difference between British and Swedish markers shows the little influx of Scandinavian genes in the British Isles. *It also contradicts the idea that the English are mostly of Germanic descent. This study concludes that the English have only marginally more Germanic blood than the Irish (a matter of of 5-10% more).*


Why are the Irish more frequently dark-haired?

And would this make the white English largely of Celtic origin?

----------


## rms2

> Why are the Irish more frequently dark-haired?
> 
> And would this make the white English largely of Celtic origin?


Here is something on the physical appearance of the Irish from Carlton Coon's old _The Races of Europe_, the details of which were based on a study of 10,000 Irishmen by Harvard's Department of Anthropology.




> *The hair color of the Irish is predominantly brown*; black hair accounts for less than 3 per cent of the total, while the ashen series (Fischer #20-26) amounts to but one-half of one per cent. Forty per cent have dark brown hair (Fischer #4-5); 35 per cent have medium brown (Fischer #7-9); reddish brown hues total over 5 per cent (closest to Fischer #6, #10), while clear reds (Fischer #1-3) run higher than 4 per cent. The rest, *some 15 per cent, fall into a light brown to golden blond category* (Fischer #11-19). Thus the hair color of the Irish is darker than that of most regions of Scandinavia, but not much darker than Iceland; it is notably different from Nordic hair, as exemplified by eastern Norwegians and Swedes, in its almost total lack of ash-blondism. The rufous hair color pigment reaches a world maximum here; not so much in reds as in the prevalance of golden hues in blond and brown shades. The lightest hair is found in the Aran Islands, where the commonest shade is, nevertheless, medium brown; in the southwestern counties there are more goldens and at the same time more dark-browns than in Ireland as a whole, while the Great Plain runs fairest of all. Red hair, with a regional maximum of 8 per cent, is commonest in Ulster, rarest in Waterford and Wexford.
> 
> *In the proportion of pure light eyes, Ireland competes successfully with the blondest regions of Scandinavia.* Over 46 per cent of the total group has pure light eyes, and of these all but 4 per cent are blue. Very light-mixed eyes (equivalent to Martin #13-14) account for another 30 per cent, while less than one-half of one per cent have pure brown. *There is probably no population of equal size in the world which is lighter eyed, and blue eyed, than the Irish.* The almost total absence of gray eyes corresponds to the equal paucity of ash-blond hair. Compared to eastern Norway, Sweden, and Finnic and Baltic groups, the eye color is disproportionately light in comparison to hair color. Regional differences, while not great, are of some importance. The ratio of pure blue eyes falls to 33 per cent in Kerry and Clare, and rises to 50 per cent in other regions - Carlow and Wicklow in the southeast, and Armagh, Monaghan, and eastern Cavan in the North. On the whole, the east is lighter eyed than the west, as it is lighter haired. At the same time the Presbyterians are blonder than the Catholics, who are in turn fairer than the members of the Church of Ireland.


If the hair color of the Irish is darker than that of the English, it would seem to be only marginally so.

----------


## Maciamo

> Why are the Irish more frequently dark-haired?


Not sure about that. The Irish have more red hair than the English. With England it's especially Eastern Englanders that are blond, which is also the region with the strongest historical Germanic settlements and the highest percentage of I1.




> And would this make the white English largely of Celtic origin?


Yes, indeed. That's in line with the high percentage of R1b-L21 everywhere in Britain and Ireland, including England.

----------


## Dubhthach

One problem I have with this report is their sampling point for Ireland is Dublin. Dublin was originaly a norse settlement before the Anglo-Norman invasion. It was then the centre of the "English Pale" for several hundred years. After all the term "beyond the pale" came about to describe the areas controlled by "ye wilde irishry"

The study on a "Genetic Atlas of "British Isles"" had sampled in Rush (village north of Dublin city) that show some Norse admixture. Their control sample for a more general Irish population was by sampling in Country Roscommon in western Ireland an area that was under native Irish rule until the early 17th century.

Some commentary I've seen on difference between swedish and english populations is due to their been a finnic admixture in Sweden, this pulls the general swedish sample away from the english one. I would have thought that as we know the "Anglo-Saxons" originated along the North Sea that they would have sampled in Netherlands/Northern Germany/Denmark.

----------


## elly

Do you think the Angles carried much S28 in any flavor? If so, how much came to Britain and where?

----------


## 882908

hi, my father is originally british from the gloucestershire area of england...i have tried searching for y-dna results specific to this area but cannot seem to find anything...anyway my father has pitch black hair, noticeably tan skin (moreso in youth) and what you would call a 'roman nose', our family name Cullimore also come from a long line of farmers in england, even starting strawberry farms upon arrival in australia....where is it possible for me to get one of these DNA tests? i would have the same y-haplogroup as my father, correct? so i could just get tested and then i would know what his haplogroup would be??

----------


## Regulus

This is fascinating stuff, but sorting through all of the numbers, dashes, and percentages can be mind-boggling. I came here to learn about these very topics, so I refuse to give up. Keep up the posts, all. I am growing more inclined to have my own Y and Mt dna checked.

----------


## Yorkie

> Do you think the Angles carried much S28 in any flavor? If so, how much came to Britain and where?


The consensus appears to be that the S28 variety of R1b is a good candidate for a La Tene Celtic marker. Given its distribution in Europe I can see why that is. I don't have a breakdown on percentages in Britain.

Strains of R1b such as U106/S21 and even more so, the rarer, U198/S29 are better candidates for clades carried by the Angles. Having said that, most population geneticists look chiefly for I1 as echoes of the Angles.

----------


## Yorkie

> Not sure about that. The Irish have more red hair than the English. With England it's especially Eastern Englanders that are blond, which is also the region with the strongest historical Germanic settlements and the highest percentage of I1.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed. That's in line with the high percentage of R1b-L21 everywhere in Britain and Ireland, including England.


As an Englishman, I concur with your observations of blondness up to a point, Maciamo. Certainly, the English of the eastern side of the country are blonder than their western neighbours, especially the largely Celtic Welsh of the far west. I agree that this does correlate to some extent with levels of I1, for example the levels of blondness are high in East Anglian Norfolk which has the highest I1 level [32%] in Britain. However, by east English we must also include the county of Yorkshire [northern location, but east of the Pennines] as a very blond county. 

There are pockets of blondness further north, and in the north-west at that too, for example around Penrith in Cumbria according to Sir Walter Bodmer.

Blondness is not solely confined to England either. Take a look around the Lothian area of lowland Scotland, where the people are largely of Anglian rather than Celtic descent, and you will see a largely fair population.

----------


## DavidCoutts

Funny; I have dark hair now, though I was blond as a child. But the hair on my arms and legs is reddish-blond. And when I can bothered to grow a beard, I have blond hairs mixed in with dark brown.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

When I meet people from the islands I sometimes have the feeling they have the biggest variety of phenotypes in the whole world: blond, red, black, brown and all kinds of facial traits. If it depended only on looks, every person in Europe could tell me he or she is British/Irish, I would believe them! *lol*
Add former colonial immigrants with British passports to that, and every person in the world could make me believe  :Laughing:

----------


## RH NEG-I

What a great post!!

----------


## Yorkie

> When I meet people from the islands I sometimes have the feeling they have the biggest variety of phenotypes in the whole world: blond, red, black, brown and all kinds of facial traits. If it depended only on looks, every person in Europe could tell me he or she is British/Irish, I would believe them! *lol*
> Add former colonial immigrants with British passports to that, and every person in the world could make me believe


 Don't forget, Britain consists of four lands-England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The large British cities may contain 'multi-racial' populations in their inner-cities, but there are still distinct, phenotypical patterns to be discerned in the populations outside of the large cities. Recently, Robin McKie's _The Face of Britain_ book and tv series [ drawing on the work of Sir Walter Bodmer and his team] made this very clear. Just taking regions within England as an example, there were discernible patterns in terms of the aggregates of facial characteristics between, say, Devon and East Anglia. These phenotypical differences in the still 94% 'white' British population reflect the differing degrees of Germanic and Celtic admixture.

----------


## Chris

> Don't forget, Britain consists of four lands-England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The large British cities may contain 'multi-racial' populations in their inner-cities, but there are still distinct, phenotypical patterns to be discerned in the populations outside of the large cities. Recently, Robin McKie's _The Face of Britain_ book and tv series [ drawing on the work of Sir Walter Bodmer and his team] made this very clear. Just taking regions within England as an example, there were discernible patterns in terms of the aggregates of facial characteristics between, say, Devon and East Anglia. These phenotypical differences in the still 94% 'white' British population reflect the differing degrees of Germanic and Celtic admixture.


Spot on, Yorkie. It's easy for the metropolitan politicos and journalists to paint us all as multi-cultural, but the DNA and cultural heritage constitutes the vast majority of the population.

----------


## Yorkie

> Spot on, Yorkie. It's easy for the metropolitan politicos and journalists to paint us all as multi-cultural, but the DNA and cultural heritage constitutes the vast majority of the population.


As you and I both know, Chris, emotional and political forces conspire to convince the British that the old 'Anglo-Saxon' and 'Celtic' identities are meaningless, urging us to embrace 'multi-culturalism'. In reality, 'multi-culturalism' merely equates to surface changes in popular culture, i.e, Chicken Tikka Masala replacing Fish and Chips as the 'nation's favourite dish' rather than to a new epoch in which 'racial harmony' has been achieved and old grudges buried forever. 

The population underwent a great upheaval at the zenith of the Industrial Revolution, and since the 1950s has witnessed mass immigration from the Third World, but census returns show that 94% of the people are still of this white, 'Anglo-Saxon-Celtic' ethnicity. As Bodmer's team have shown, many of the 'old' patterns of distinctive phenotypical aggregates still remain. I for one find that rather splendid.

----------


## Eireannach

> Don't forget, *Britain* consists of four lands-England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The large British cities may contain 'multi-racial' populations in their inner-cities, but there are still distinct, phenotypical patterns to be discerned in the populations outside of the large cities. Recently, Robin McKie's _The Face of Britain_ book and tv series [ drawing on the work of Sir Walter Bodmer and his team] made this very clear. Just taking regions within England as an example, there were discernible patterns in terms of the aggregates of facial characteristics between, say, Devon and East Anglia. These phenotypical differences in the still 94% 'white' British population reflect the differing degrees of Germanic and Celtic admixture.


Shouldn't you have said the UK? Last time I looked at a map Britain was an island seperate from the northern part of Ireland.

----------


## Regulus

> As you and I both know, Chris, emotional and political forces conspire to convince the British that the old 'Anglo-Saxon' and 'Celtic' identities are meaningless, urging us to embrace 'multi-culturalism'. In reality, 'multi-culturalism' merely equates to surface changes in popular culture, i.e, Chicken Tikka Masala replacing Fish and Chips as the 'nation's favourite dish' rather than to a new epoch in which 'racial harmony' has been achieved and old grudges buried forever. 
> 
> The population underwent a great upheaval at the zenith of the Industrial Revolution, and since the 1950s has witnessed mass immigration from the Third World, but census returns show that 94% of the people are still of this white, 'Anglo-Saxon-Celtic' ethnicity. As Bodmer's team have shown, many of the 'old' patterns of distinctive phenotypical aggregates still remain. I for one find that rather splendid.


The same problems are assailing us on this side also. Our children learn nothing about what cultural forces and individual personalities came into play in creating our society. Those things are supposed to be treated as if they did not exist or had no bearing on any outcome.

The 'identities" that you mentioned, and I would include other ones of Europe, only survive by the efforts of those who refuse to accept this willful ignorance.

----------


## Yorkie

> Shouldn't you have said the UK? Last time I looked at a map Britain was an island seperate from the northern part of Ireland.


Oh dear, yawn...I sense a 'terrible beauty' being born... :Wary: 

ps There are two 'a's in 'separate'. Or at least there were the last time I looked.

----------


## Eireannach

> Oh dear, yawn...I sense a 'terrible beauty' being born...
> 
> ps There are two 'a's in 'separate'. Or at least there were the last time I looked.



Yawn all you like. I misplace a letter, you misplace a region.  :Indifferent:

----------


## Yorkie

> Yawn all you like. I misplace a letter, you misplace a region.


Britain consists of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Whether you like it or not, the Irish Republic signed away its claim on Northern Ireland. Physical geography doesn't seem to count for much in the world of politics.  :Laughing:

----------


## Chris

> Britain consists of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.


It's a fact!

----------


## Eireannach

> Britain consists of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Whether you like it or not, the Irish Republic signed away its claim on Northern Ireland. Physical geography doesn't seem to count for much in the world of politics.


Britain consists of England, Scotland and Wales. 

The UK consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The UK is a political entity, Britain is an island.

The removal of articles 2 and 3 from Bunreacht na hEireann bears no relationship to the historical planting of British people into Ireland to maintain conrtol over Ireland. We waited 700 years for ye to get out of 26 counties, we can wait another 100 for the last 6. Demographics may make it happen sooner.

----------


## Yorkie

> Britain consists of England, Scotland and Wales. 
> 
> The UK consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
> 
> The UK is a political entity, Britain is an island.
> 
> The removal of articles 2 and 3 from Bunreacht na hEireann bears no relationship to the historical planting of British people into Ireland to maintain conrtol over Ireland. We waited 700 years for ye to get out of 26 counties, we can wait another 100 for the last 6. Demographics may make it happen sooner.


Who is 'ye'? How do you know where my political and national sympathies lie?
You _had_ to respond didn't you, eh? LOL. You just _couldn't_ shrug your shoulders and walk away. Like a big fat Tench, you took the bait... :Laughing:

----------


## Regulus

Well, let's hope that this one does not devolve into another Macedonians thread.

My Irish side (1/2) has been here in the US since the 1920s, so I guess that I don't rate any further comments. :Cool V:

----------


## LeBrok

Hehe, Europeans love their wars, I guess. I don't mind hot discussion and people say their piece. This is how we learn the other side of the story, and not only what you learnt from local schools/government and your parents. As long as we are civilized and treat people with respect, we'll be fine.
The happy ending is when people find more commonalities, and go over their historic pains, and work together towards strong, prosperous and peaceful Europe or the world in general.

----------


## Regulus

Fair enough. 
To be honest, I was being tongue-in-cheek. The players involved in this thread are not of that type anyway.

----------


## Eireannach

> Who is 'ye'? How do you know where my political and national sympathies lie?
> You _had_ to respond didn't you, eh? LOL. You just _couldn't_ shrug your shoulders and walk away. Like a big fat Tench, you took the bait...


"Ye" would be British interference in Irish affairs. I don't know where your political or national sympathies lie but if you display a pompous attitude towards the geopolitical makeup of the UK and deliberately goad another poster you will get a response.

Why wouldn't I respond? Why should I shrug my shoulders and walk away?

----------


## Yorkie

> "Ye" would be British interference in Irish affairs. I don't know where your political or national sympathies lie but if you display a pompous attitude towards the geopolitical makeup of the UK and deliberately goad another poster you will get a response.
> 
> Why wouldn't I respond? Why should I shrug my shoulders and walk away?


Your last sentence says it all, really...

I have never 'interfered' in Irish affairs, though I once wrote a letter to Terry Wogan.

----------


## Eireannach

> Your last sentence says it all, really...
> 
> I have never 'interfered' in Irish affairs, though I once wrote a letter to Terry Wogan.


Does it? You may never have interfered personally but if you are British your attitude doesn't surprise me.

You can try and be flippant all you like and issue trite remarks ad infinitum.

----------


## Yorkie

> Does it? You may never have interfered personally but if you are British your attitude doesn't surprise me.
> 
> You can try and be flippant all you like and issue trite remarks ad infinitum.


I realise that you desire a 'united Ireland'. Frankly, you can have one for me. Unfortunately, neither the British nor Irish government seem likely to bring this about. Scratch the surface and a vast majority of English have some Irish genes [me included], and there is no such thing as inherited ethnic guilt so you do not need to refer to me as 'Ye'.

----------


## Eireannach

> I realise that you desire a 'united Ireland'. Frankly, you can have one for me. Unfortunately, neither the British nor Irish government seem likely to bring this about. Scratch the surface and a vast majority of English have some Irish genes [me included], and there is no such thing as inherited ethnic guilt so you do not need to refer to me as 'Ye'.


Its nothing to do with my desires, nor the capacity of the British or Irish governments, nor the existence or not of an 'inherited ethnic guilt'. I pointed out an error in your post on what Britain consists of. You persisted with that error, then went on to belittle an independence movement with your yawn and 'terrible beauty' jibe followed by a childish spellcheck. You continued in this vein in subsequent posts and then expect me not to respond. Having an arrogant British attitude will get you put in the 'ye' box :Smile:

----------


## Yorkie

> Its nothing to do with my desires, nor the capacity of the British or Irish governments, nor the existence or not of an 'inherited ethnic guilt'. I pointed out an error in your post on what Britain consists of. You persisted with that error, then went on to belittle an independence movement with your yawn and 'terrible beauty' jibe followed by a childish spellcheck. You continued in this vein in subsequent posts and then expect me not to respond. Having an arrogant British attitude will get you put in the 'ye' box


I know, I know, I'm a terrible man aren't I? Of course, it goes without saying that 'the Bratash' are responsible for each and every ill that has ever befallen Ireland. Please forgive me/us. I apologise unreservedly about, well..everything really, from geographical boundary errors to Strongbow's Cambro-Norman invasions and the susequent 'thousand years of British interference in Irish affairs' leading to the present, inconvenient and costly situation. Will that do?

I promise to vote for Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest, and to drink Guinness instead of insipid, warm Bitter. Your 'crack' [if you'll pardon the expression] is infinitely superior to our British mumblings and grumblings. Thankyou for Bushmills, Beckett, Joyce, Donal Lunny and Christy Moore. You can keep Bono...

Seriously, sorry for the jibe.

----------


## LeBrok

Lol, I love this apology. First class Yorkie!
Eireannach, I know there are grievances from past history, and probably half of the world can say it to GB. I liked your responses too, smart and you kept it civilised. Great exchange guys.
Peace then. :)

----------


## Eireannach

> I know, I know, I'm a terrible man aren't I? Of course, it goes without saying that 'the Bratash' are responsible for each and every ill that has ever befallen Ireland. Please forgive me/us. I apologise unreservedly about, well..everything really, from geographical boundary errors to Strongbow's Cambro-Norman invasions and the susequent 'thousand years of British interference in Irish affairs' leading to the present, inconvenient and costly situation. Will that do?
> 
> I promise to vote for Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest, and to drink Guinness instead of insipid, warm Bitter. Your 'crack' [if you'll pardon the expression] is infinitely superior to our British mumblings and grumblings. Thankyou for Bushmills, Beckett, Joyce, Donal Lunny and Christy Moore. You can keep Bono...
> 
> Seriously, sorry for the jibe.


 :Good Job: 

P.S. can you please take Bono?

----------


## Yorkie

> P.S. can you please take Bono?


Er, oh.. ok then. In the interests of Anglo-Irish cordiality we'll take him. Better still, let's have an exchange programme- you can take Sting... :Good Job:

----------


## spongetaro

Bog body found in Ireland

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14505730

----------

