They should figure out why that's so important because it's rally meaningless. They could say: Hi, I'm someone descended from Saxony, but I was born in X and that makes me an Xian.
-
-
Replying to @ISASaxonists
Hmm in my limited life experience I've noticed people like groups and adjectives : I'm Xhosa, I'm Flemish, I'm Basque etc. If someone wants to alter/remove a term then it helps to have a substitute to sellpic.twitter.com/dMilneG51b
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @dorsetexile83
(deleted 1st response cause I wasn't clear) Anglo-Saxon was not a term widely used by the early English. Do you mean someone from Saxony in Germany? The thing is it's the English who use that term, and its inaccurate. There is no such thing as someone being 95% "Anglo-Saxon".
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ISASaxonists
I think that's what I mean. Occasionally someone will ask me if I'm descended from Saxons, Normans, Vikings or 'native' English.. My friend knows he's from Scottish/Viking stock.. Can't there be a noun for someone with Saxon genes if AS has got to go?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dorsetexile83 @ISASaxonists
In the Sherlock Holmes book The Speckled Band the main character is described as being from one of the last great Anglo Saxon aristocratic families of Surrey and that's always stuck in my mind. What adjective should Conan Doyle have used to make the destinction with Normans?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dorsetexile83 @ISASaxonists
I can tell you right now that genetically there is very little difference between anyone who are descended from people living in England from before 1066 and anyone who arrived after, because everyone intermarried. The comparison with ancient DNA and modern is highly contested.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
You can say where your family was from, the history of how they moved from place to place, where they lived. But ultimately everyone is a mix. I should also say that descent did not define ethnicity and there were many other markers that did.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @ISASaxonists
Surely this isn't the case in areas such as Cumbria? I understand that the north west had a strong irish/scottish/Norse identity and didn't mix with 'England' linguistically or genetically until the late middle ages, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dorsetexile83 @ISASaxonists
This is a long and difficult topic but I’ll try to make this clear. In the Neolithic period there was a large scale migration of peoples that populated Europe and either assimilated or displaced the Paleolithic peoples. However, there is no evidence of a mass migration later on.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
So functionally the peoples of Northern Europe especially are not that different, genetically. This is a change to the old thinking of culture = descent. So we need to rethink how cultures moved. It was through contact and change rather than mass movement of people.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
So yes, in NW Britain and Ireland, different languages and cultures. However, there was still plenty of movement. Who’s to say there weren’t “Germanic” people who integrated into British-speaking cultures? We know it happened with nobility.
-
-
Plenty of Irish/Welsh/Pictish women were the wives or concubines of English kings, and likely vice versa. The idea that peasants didn’t move? Another misconception. Who’s to say a regular dude didn’t up and leave and integrate?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Regular folks probably didn’t even think in these terms. They just thought, this is my land and this is what I speak, but those people over the ridge speak something else. But there are interpreters, merchants.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.