England - a step deeper?

[PeteC]

Following Quote: "During the 5th century AD, the Saxons were part of the people invading the Romano-British province of Britannia. One of these tribes was the Germanic Angles, whose name, taken together with that of the Saxons, led to the formation of the modern term, Anglo-Saxons. Indeed England is derived from the name Angle."

I'm not done with the Monarchy yet but I want to go back to this above earlier era in due course.

Am I to believe that the majority of native British people today are indeed descended from the Germans and probably Romans? Are there any records of a real 'native' British population that were there first? Pete

[PeteC]

I can now add in Vikings and Normans as well to the above. It's beginning to look like Britain was as much of a 'melting pot' as the USA was at a later time.

I haven't gotten to Scotland yet. Perhaps they are the true original natives of those islands? Pete

[dtaai-maai]

Yes, Pete, the original Brits were those now known as the Celts - although, of course, at some point in time they certainly came from somewhere else as the whole place was covered in ice for quite some time...

The UK is probably more of a mishmash of origins than almost anywhere else because of the number of different cultures 'influencing its development' (i.e. invading and taking over or integrating with the current occupants.

The Vikings/Norse and the Saxons arrived at pretty much the same time, but from slightly different directions - namely after the Roman legions buggered off back to Rome to try to hang on to what they had in about 400 AD. The Vikings took over most of the northeast of England and the Saxons the south and east, both resulting in pushing the Celts far to the west, which is why Celtic/Gaelic languages linger on in Wales and Cornwall.
And Scotland, of course. Not many Vikings ever wanted to settle in Scotland for some reason, though they took most of the islands.

Sussex = South Saxons
Wessex = West Saxons
Essex = East Saxons

[PeteC]

The UK is probably more of a mishmash of origins than almost anywhere else because of the number of different cultures 'influencing its development' (i.e. invading and taking over or integrating with the current occupants.

Thanks DTM. I focus though on the above portion. I am a big fan of genetic diversity and how it influenced the ability to build empires, technology and everything else we know in this day and age as 'success'.

There is a reason IMO why some societies grew strong and excelled, and others didn't. Hitler's scheme didn't have a chance. The Reich would have eventually ended up with interbred idiots in a few hundred years. We can look at a globe today and pinpoint who the winners may be in the future, and I don't believe it will be the Chinese or Japanese as an example, and certainly not Middle Eastern or African countries.

I really hadn't looked at British early history before like I've been looking at it today and it makes sense to me given the historic genetic diversity why you've achieved what you have. Now, whether that level of success can be repeated is doubtful, but the ingredients are there to make the best of any situation. The USA will be in the same boat, maybe sooner than later and I hope my theory is correct for them as well.

To me at least, interesting stuff and I believe some truth to what I preach. Thanks. Pete

[hhfarang]

And Scotland, of course. Not many Vikings ever wanted to settle in Scotland for some reason, though they took most of the islands.

Something I noticed when I was touring Scotland (and Ireland to a lesser extent) that, in my experience, is very rare elsewhere, were a lot of women with the strikingly beautiful combination of black or very dark hair and very blue or green eyes.

In America, 90 odd percent of people with blue eyes are blond (or blonde, if you prefer).

Surely, this must have come from some mixture of Nordic blood into the line...