English Histree

[JamesMCFC]

I recently had one of those genetic tests done to determine where your genetic makeup is from.

If it's accurate, looks like my ancestors didn't travel much ha.

 

[BrianW]

History is a very broad and very deep subject. There is no way it can be taught "properly" in schools. What you get (at best) is selected, edited highlights. The question then becomes - who does the editing, and in whose interests?

If you want to really understand history you need to read books, loads of them. I have specialised in the late middle ages since I was 16, it's an absolute passion for me, but there are still thousands of books on the subject I haven't read and whole areas where my knowledge is cursory or practically non-existent.

There are people who literally spend a lifetime studying one aspect - archery, say, or costume, or the use of horses. And even these guys (and girls) will tell you there are issues they are not 100% clear about.

The idea that there is one simple narrative that can be carved on stone and never questioned is absolute bollocks. Bollocks on stilts. Historians revise history every time they write a book.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Started watching the last kingdom in Netflix last night, not sure it's totally accurate but is definitely a good watch

Based on some real historical figures, but they're all thrown around into different timelines to fit the story.

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

We are basically a mix of Danes and German tribe, whose language along with Latin and French forms what we have today. It also explains the rivalry with Celtic countries, as native Britains were forced to Wales Ireland and Scotland.

I might be wrong, but from what I’ve read that isn’t true. Natives brits didn’t all suddenly disappear and go to Wales and Scotland. Lots of them stayed in England. Don’t see how that would work for normans for instance, if the entire population of England just left

Lots of the Norman population were higher nobility and didn’t replace the ordinary folk. There was also a relatively small number of invading Norman’s compared to the population at large. Therefore I’d imagine lots of people have Brit/ Celtic ancestary

again I might be wrong on that, but that’s what I’ve seen.

 

[oman0115]

I might be wrong, but from what I’ve read that isn’t true. Natives brits didn’t all suddenly disappear and go to Wales and Scotland. Lots of them stayed in England. Don’t see how that would work for normans for instance, if the entire population of England just left

Lots of the Norman population were higher nobility and didn’t replace the ordinary folk. There was also a relatively small number of invading Norman’s compared to the population at large. Therefore I’d imagine lots of people have Brit/ Celtic ancestary

again I might be wrong on that, but that’s what I’ve seen.

My understanding was the population when the normans arrived were mostly descendants from Northern Germans and Denmark, some Danes settled after the viking invasion too. I don't entirely understand what happened to the original English pre Anglo Saxons, maybe they were intermixed too, but I though a lot left.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

So with the situation being what it is, more spare time less to do etc I've been trying to look more into things, of a historical nature. I am guilty of not knowing an awful lot about us as English so i've been reading up on us and it's actually quite fascinating. We are basically a mix of Danes and German tribe, whose language along with Latin and French forms what we have today. It also explains the rivalry with Celtic countries, as native Britains were forced to Wales Ireland and Scotland when the Anglo saxons settled. Does anyone share an interest in our histroy, and if so do you know any good books / documentaries to source?

The notion of the English as Anglo-Saxons and the Welsh and the Scots as Celts has come to be regarded as flawed in recent years; the Anglo-Saxons now being seen more as settlers arriving over a prolonged period rather than an as invading army, with many of the native English (Celts) remaining in situ, and ultimately intermarrying, rather than being forced West and North. Enhanced DNA testing also apparently suggests less Germanic dominance than one might have expected from an army of its previously imagined size, albeit that the natives were subsumed culturally.
Not a period I’ve studied in any real depth though, so that lot could be bollocks!

 

[nellyonthewing]

I recently had one of those genetic tests done to determine where your genetic makeup is from.

If it's accurate, looks like my ancestors didn't travel much ha.

Looks like you stayed within a few miles of Maine Rd.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Yes I’m very interested in the history and, especially, the genealogy of it all.

Geneology/DNA tests that a lot of people are having these days are showing that there’s a lot of Brythonic DNA in what we thought were “English” people.

When you look at our area here in the North West of “England”, we were never really settled by the Angles or Saxons (or Jutes or Frisians):

View attachment 10539

And looking at the DNA of the modern British population:
View attachment 10540

It pretty much mirrors the Brythonic/Anglo-Saxon split around 600CE:
View attachment 10541

In the North West, the Brythonic population didn’t all just up and move to “Wales”, they stayed put and were just engulfed into what became “England” while keeping their/our DNA.

And even in areas with stronger Angle Saxon Jute or Frisian DNA, they show to have a lot of Brythonic DNA as well. The DNA of Britain is ancient, with just varying degrees of admixture from elsewhere much later on.

This is why I consider myself British rather than “English”, and British before “English”.

Also “Scottish” DNA is more closely related to “English” DNA than North and South “Wales” is to each other. South “Scottish” DNA is more closely related to “English” DNA than it is North “Scottish”, which is considered slightly different to the rest of Great Britain’s DNA, but not enough to fall elsewhere on the below graph. Maybe the Sct DNA is explained in its closeness to NL DNA (graph below) where there is a close similarity between the Orkney vole the the vole of the Low Countries (a type of vole found nowhere else but these two areas), maybe showing there was a lot of ancient travel between the Low Counties and Orkney; or possibly showing the Picts being distinct from the rest of Scotland.
And and “Ireland’s” DNA isn’t much different to British and, as a cluster together, is distinct from the neighbouring mainland European DNA:
View attachment 10542

There’s basically no DNA basis on “England” “Scotland” and “Wales” being their own distinct areas, it’s far more fragmented than three and isn’t different enough between all the fragments to be considered distinct. And Ireland is certainly part of the British Isles with similar DNA going back thousands of years, with some admixture (the Brigantes from Britain also had a kingdom in Ireland, for example).

Cheers for that post. Insightful stuff. I’ve been doing amateur genealogy for years, but I’ve always found DNA a really difficult subject to grasp. I’ll button-hole you sometime with a whole load of questions!

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

I’ve read similar in respect of the English Celts remaining in England. The Normans were descended from Vikings. You are right that they were relatively small in number, and over time intermarried with the native English population as you might expect. I know from my own family history (I have a direct ancestor who was a Marcher Lord, instrumental in the Norman invasion of Wales in 1093) that that process wasn’t immediate though - the first 4 generations intermarrying with other prominent Norman families rather than the indigenous ‘Welsh’.
DNA is a peculiar thing in terms of linking people with places, with profiles/traits being determined over prolonged and ancient periods. I have a sizeable amount of Scottish DNA, despite not having a single Scottish ancestor anywhere in my family tree (or certainly not in the last 6 generations or so) that I am aware of. I also have a less sizeable amount of Swedish DNA, but the same applies in as much as I have no immediate Swedish ancestors. I attended a lecture on DNA a couple of years ago. Fascinating stuff, but a lot of it left me baffled!

intermarrying over the centuries probably explains some of it. As I said previously I just don’t see the entire population of England of disappearing. Invasion would be difficult if that happened.

if you look at the Britons (us) we are very closely linked to the Welsh/ Scottish. It’s a very distinct group of people in Europe, obviously separated by the sea.

invasions has had an impact and changed things, but it’s mainly culture that changed, not the people. Even if you look at the last 1,000 years the highest level of immigration is from Ireland. (From what I’ve read).

either way it’s very Interesting to learn about

 

[Protein Junkie]

I might be wrong, but from what I’ve read that isn’t true. Natives brits didn’t all suddenly disappear and go to Wales and Scotland. Lots of them stayed in England. Don’t see how that would work for normans for instance, if the entire population of England just left

Lots of the Norman population were higher nobility and didn’t replace the ordinary folk. There was also a relatively small number of invading Norman’s compared to the population at large. Therefore I’d imagine lots of people have Brit/ Celtic ancestary

again I might be wrong on that, but that’s what I’ve seen.

Nope I think you are right on the lack of a mass migration.