Talk:Anglo-Celtic

Anglo Saxonism influenced?
I've removed this paragraph:

The term has lately fallen into disrepute and is now scorned by Celtic Revivalists (see Modern Celts) in Australia and the US who wish to distinguish themselves as a separate group from the English and the cult of Anglo Saxonism, which they view as a hostile and colonizing force.

It seems grossly POV and is completely unsourced. TharkunColl 23:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. It was highly POV.  It is also not true.  The term is not scorned, albeit only by a few.  There are so many groups with viewpoints on any topic.  I see no reason to include this one viewpoint which is very marginal and ill-educated.  Even the term 'Cult of Anglo Saxonism' implies a thinking of England and English people that is outdated and anglophobic, and extremely wharped.  Best to avoid this kookiness. Enzedbrit 12:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I also removed the rest of the article as it was 1/ just plain wrong, 2/ very anti-English and also slightly anti-American, 3/ very subjective and 4/ showed complete ignorance with the term Anglo-Saxon and lacked intelligent opinion; it was based largely on personal prejudice than fact. Enzedbrit 12:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If we are going to do an article on the topic, lets do it right. I think we can do this under the broad banner of "British Australian", since I doubt there are many second plus generation Australians of exclusively Celtic only or Scottish only or English only etc. extraction.  It is uncommon for an Australian-born (or even a British-born and Australian-raised) British-Australian to identify themselves as anything but Australian.  Indeed the term "British Australian" sounds invented (although it is more accurate but less widely used than "Anglo Australian").  Kransky 16:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that to understand this phrase, you have to get into the Aussie mindset. For Anglo-Celtic, read "people of British and Irish origin". Anyone else seems to be regarded as an "immigrant" or "ethnic minority" or whatever. Even the word British causes problems there, with ill-educated people writing to the press objecting to Scots and Welsh being called "British". Millbanks 08:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph
I have removed the following: ''This ethnic-cultural category is rejected by many people of mainly Irish, Welsh or Scottish ancestry, who identify themselves solely with their own Celtic way of life and outlook as opposed to the mostly Germanic culture of the English. This is particularly true in Europe, where mixing between both groups as been less complete than in Australia and North America, and where English culture is still perceived as foreign by many people of Celtic background (especially in Western Wales, the Republic of Ireland and the Scottish Highlands). Anglo-Celticism is thus seen by many people as just another attempt to deconstruct and assimilate Celtic culture into the dominant English culture.'' On what was this based? On which facts? Where is the proof that this is used predominately by people of 'Irish, Welsh or Scottish' ancestory? This has been posted to be anti-English bias. The bulk of it about 'Germanic English culture', foreign culture in 'Celtic lands', etc., is fanciful and not based on truth. Enzedbrit 19:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Additions
Hello, I have inserted some additional references of relevance to this page and worked them into the text as best I can; I’ve not removed anything.

I modified the introductory paragraph to refer to the term as a macro-cultural term, to show its use in the term ‘Anglo-Celtic Warfare’ and include mention of its use as a notional racial category.

The reference additions are:

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/63/04713186/0471318663.pdf - Showing use as a macro-cultural term.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arthur-Anglo-Saxon-Wars-Anglo-Celtic-D-410-1066/dp/0850455480 - Showing use of term ‘Anglo-Celtic Warfare’.

http://www.anglo-celtic.org.uk/ - Showing use of the term in England.

http://www.unison.ie/anglo_celt/ - Highlighting a newspaper sold in Irish counties Cavan, Fermanagh and Monaghan named ‘The Anglo-Celt’.

I also inserted some interesting historical information on the arrival of the meeting of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon culture from: http://www.joensuu.fi/fld/ecc/

I additionally inserted the following sentence as it is directly relevant: As the Normans who arrived from France and settled mainly in England after 1066 are commonly known as 'Anglo-Norman', the term can also be seen to be inclusive of this cultural group.

Ok, that’s it for now! Best regards to everyone working to make this an informative, balanced and fair article. Pconlon 11:58, 10 May 2007 (GMT)

Made two (very!) minor modifications/corrections:

- Removed 'be seen as' from the line 'the term can also be inclusive of this cultural group' referencing the Anglo-Normans.

- Inserted the missing hyphen in the reference to 'The Anglo-Celt' newspaper.

Kind regards, Pconlon 10:05, 14 May 2007 (GMT)

A further (referenced) addition to first paragraph:

'It is used in 'Anglo-Celtic Isles', an alternative term (in limited use) for the geographic region comprising Britain, Ireland and the smaller adjacent islands, more commonly referred to as the 'British Isles' - the former geographic term being preferred by some due to it being free of any perceived political implication.'

Kind regards, Pconlon 22:51, 3 June 2007 (GMT)

Best to be precise
A contributor inserted '(Anglo)' and '(Celtic)' in the first sentence, as shown below:

'...the cultures native to England (Anglo) and Ireland, Scotland and Wales (Celtic)...'.

It is undoubtedly true that England is predominently Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Norman in its cultural tradition and that the Celtic cultural tradition dominates in Ireland, Scotland and Wales. However, there is a Celtic aspect to English culture and there are certainly non-Celtic influences in the rest of the island group. In my native Ireland for example, there has been significant influence culturally (as well as militarily!) from Vikings, Anglo-Normans and Anglo-Saxons (the first two groups particularly). I am for this reason removing those two brackets from the first sentence as they are misleading. In paragraph three, I am for the same reason replacing ‘…refers strictly to the nations of…’ with ‘…refers to the Celtic peoples predominently inhabiting…’. I am happy to discuss this further of course!

Also, for all article changes and modifications, can all contributors please enter a record (and explanation for their line of thought) on this Discussion page, following standard Wikipedia practice.

Kind regards, Pconlon 19:34 (mod), 18 June 2007 (GMT)

Another addition
I've inserted the following into the first paragraph: "The derivative term 'Anglo-Celtic Islands' is also used." The reference is: http://www.rami.ie/Portals/_Rami/Documents/11-06IrishMedSci_eng.pdf Kind regards, Pconlon 19:37, 23 June 2007 (GMT)

Avoid needless discomfort
Hello people, I've seen the recent back and forth between 'British Isles' and 'England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales' and, given the discomfort that many (mainly Irish) people (like myself) have with the former, have changed it to the latter - why needlessly upset people?! Kind regards, Pconlon 00:26, 31 July 2007 (GMT) I find it offensive that it was removed, so I've changed it back. It is silly to list so many regions/countries when one term that sufficienty describes them all can simply be used. The British Isles includes more than just England, Scotland, Wales and (Southern) Ireland, such as the surrounding smaller islands and Northern Ireland, it is a more simpler term. Wikipedia should not bow down to a minority, to exclude facts! --203.94.135.134 01:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why upset those who like the term?
 * If it is any consolation to Pconlon the name 'Britain' is Celtic in origin, derived from Pretani, meaning "painted ones" (like Pict) which the Romans mistranscribed to "Britanni." Modern Welsh preserves the original sound as 'Prydein.'  If you move from Brythonic 'P' Celtic to Goidelic 'Q' Celtic (Irish-Scots Gaelic) the sound shift transmuted pret to cruit to produce Cruithne (the name for both Picts and the inhabitants of Britain generally).  There were non-Gaelic tribes (sometimes equated with the Fir Bolg) in early Ireland (such as the Brigantes) referred to as Cruithne.  In the last analysis the term 'British Isles' isn't anti-Celtic, or even anti-Irish at all. Urselius 09:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To follow the term 'cultures native to...' in the intro, 'Britain and Ireland' is just as good as 'British Isles'. Urselius, thanks, I'm actually aware of the linguistic origins of 'British'. It's the modern meaning of the adjective - being on Britain, wholely belonging to it or wholely being dependent on it - to which I refer. Cheers, Pconlon 13:20, 26 Sept 2007 (GMT)
 * I disagree, the term 'British Isles' emcompasses more than just 'Britain and Ireland', it includes smaller islands that are not part of either Britain or Ireland, but are part of the British Isles geographically and culturally. The terms 'Britain and Ireland' could mean either a geographical or a political entity and so they are too ambiguous to use, hense they are *not* as good as 'British Isles'. --203.94.135.134 23:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The point made above appears to be missed here; objection was not made on geographic grounds. People native to this island grouping (archipelago) are either British, Irish or (in some cases) both. Do note also that one of the two sovereign governments on these islands (the Irish one) does not recognise or use the referenced term. 'Britain and Ireland', to my knowledge, is not a political entity. Pconlon 10:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Weasel Words
There seems to have been (an undocumented) dispute regarding the paragraph on the Celts in England and their lasting influence. I don't know who is right, but it is important to present referencable claims from historians as claims and avoid using weasel words, such as 'they would have it'. I have therefore made the following few changes: replaced 'a minority of' with 'some' (as there is no evidence given of the relative sizes of the groups holding these opposing opinions), replaced 'they would have it' with 'they claim' (removal of weasel words), inserted an 'entirely' in the 'not wiped out' sentence and inserted an extra 'they claim' into the sentence starting 'Further'. Pconlon 11:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Addition
A further reference from an Irish Unionist source has been added. Pconlon 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

English Genetics
I think I added to the Anglo-Celt section and it hasbeen removed which is OK because it may have been poorly written but some of the facts that I tried to convey are relevant.

There is a book by Stephen Oppenheimer called the Origins of the British. In this book he provides a rigorous analysis of genetics, language and other. His conclusions are as follows:

The presence of anglo-saxon genetic matrial is maximum 15% in Norfolk and drops rapidly to ave 5% outside East Anglia.

Various history/ archeology programmes on Discovery/History, have made these claims:

1. There is no genetic discernable difference between Danish and Norwegian Viking ancestry - these together are Norse gene markers

2. The ratio of Norse to Celt genes is ave 50:50 in central England, with celtic gene markers rising in the west and reducing in the East

3. For centrally located English British, the ratio of Norse to Celt genes is twice as high in the north of England, above the line of Danelaw.

So, the ethnic British English population is a mixture of celt and norse. very little saxon genetics although I believe the anglo-saxons had a big impact on social/legal frameworks

There is another book by Kate someone, an anthropology professor and her claim is that Englishness is not racial but cultural and consists of high and low English culture. Stephen Fry is a good example of someone not from an ethnically British lineage (Norse-Celt) becoming the perfect (high) Englishman.

I think it is really important for us to be clear about the terms British and English. They seem to have swopped over with English becoming the genetic synonym and British being purely cultural. Whilst this may not be accurate it may be too late to stem the tide of socio-political opinion and, ergo, by common usage the words have been redefined.

Nevertheless we can be clear when we talk about the English genetic lineage that we have the most up to date science employed on the matter.

Thanks for accepting this comment.

86.158.106.244 (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglo-Celtic"

To continue my previous post - I have re-read what I wrote in March (25th) and was removed in May, and I think it should stand. I see no reason why it should be deemed irrelevant when the section already refers to race and British genetics.

This is an extract from Wikipedia Genetic History of the British:

The percentage of the R1b haplotype on the Y chromosomes of English males, at about 64%,[19] indicates that they may be descended primarily from the earliest Paleolithic peoples thought to have recolonised western Europe from a western Ice Age refuge after the end of the last major glaciation some 25-15 thousand years ago.[20]

Y chromosome analysis of men from Britain, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, Norway, Friesland and the Basque Country of Northern Spain and South Western France has revealed that the Germanic (Danish/North German/Frisian) component in the male line of descent is higher in some areas of England than others.[21] It is highest in York and Norfolk, where the Germanic Y chromosome occurs in about 60% of men, while indigenous Y chromosomes comprise about 40%, and lowest in the west of the country.[21] The research cannot distinguish between Danish (the presumed source of Danish-Viking settlers to East and Northern England), North German (Schleswig-Holstein, modern era) and Frisian (Anglo-Saxon) Y chromosomes. It concludes "these data are consistent with the presence of some indigenous component in all British regions".[21] Also, this research cannot make reference to the extent of settlement by Anglo-Saxon/Danish-Viking women. Therefore even in places like York, the total genetic contribution of these peoples would be less than 60% if fewer women than men migrated, and conversely it would be greater if more women than men settled.

86.158.106.244 (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * @86.158.106.244 all of this just seems to be about The English domination of the Isles and the realm- I n Australia we're beyond sectarianism ayun the colonies we are trying to form treaties- in spite of people whom still think they are 'british'. 49.183.120.163 (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Information on modern research into the genetic make-up of England (and/or other parts of these islands) would be welcome on this page. I would just suggest that a high-level summary of the key findings might be the appropriate level of detail to go into. Please do add this is you care to 86.158... Pconlon 11:28, 18 December 2008 (GMT)

'Great Britain' reference incorrect
I have replaced 'Great Britain' with 'Britain' in the text describing the settling of people on the island - the latter term is correctly geographic, while the former is political and refers to the political union of England and Scotland after 1707 (people cannot be said to have settled there prior). Pconlon 11:45, 18 December 2008 (GMT)

Reference replaced
I have returned the reference to the 'Anglo-Celt' newspaper, as it is clearly of relevance to the subject of this page. Pconlon 12:03, 18 December 2008 (GMT)

Anglo-Celtic Isles
The references in this section are inadequate. One points to a book on Amazon, another, written in Dutch, to a list of uni courses and another to a publication demonstrating a variation of the term is merely the personal preference of a single author. The whole section adds very little. Van Speijk (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * They were exceedingly poor references in my opinion. I've added a better (and more extensive) one. I think use of the term in this sense is noteworthy though. --RA (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wording...
of the controversial term "British Isles" (which can be substituted by the term 'Anglo-Celtic Isles'). - Not a fan of this wording at all. It sounds ungrammatical and clunky (and grammar/sentence structure is certainly not my strong point - reading very much is however!), and this article is not about the controversy over the term "British Isles". I am not a fan of the term myself as I consider it inherently tainted, however I am not interested in pushing any sort of POV on this page. Wikipedia policy seems to be against removing the term "British Isles". Any suggestions to improve? Because this is one hot potato I would like to handle with care...--Julius R.S (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see it's been removed. Probably for the best! --Julius R.S (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Relevant . . . in the United States"
The concept is mainly relevant outside of Great Britain and Ireland, particularly in Australia but also in Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and South Africa, where a significant diaspora is located.

I have never heard this term used in the United States. I definitely question its "relevancy" in this country. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * @108.254.160.23 we use this term in Australia because we don't want to be lumped in with dominant British ideology- as a Mick I do not agree with many dominant Protestant/Anglican ideals- more of a Chartist/Fenian/social-democrat/trot my grandmother was a Scott- loyalist and hated my old man's family because they where Mics- now we live in a sun-burt country I cannot deny those old world sectarian ideals-- I hate being called anglo-saxon- I'm obviously noeman 49.183.120.163 (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)