Talk:Celts (modern)/Archive (England)

North-East England

I can't find much evidence (at least from people in the North-East) for a claimed Celtic identity. It is true we share much in common with Lowland Scotland (which is not fully Celtic in culture) and have kilts and bagpipes. However bagpipes are not only a Celtic instrument (as they have been used in many cultures for centuries) and Kilts have their origins with the Norse peoples and are only part of Scottish culture due to the influence of the Norse-Gaels (and thus only an import into Celtic culture).

The North-East generally claims a Norse (or Viking as most would say) identity...which is incorrect as most of the North-East was free from Norse rule (though it was a puppet state) except Cleveland and Yorkshire.

Or are we talking about the Irish community (a common site in most cities) in Newcastle (not all of the North-East). So though the North-East is connected to the Celts (like all of Britain) I would not classify it as a Celtic region nor would I claim that the inhabitants (like me) see themselves anymore Celtic than anywhere else in the UK. Even if the South would like to think of us as Scotsmen a lot of the time (at least north of Hadrian's Wall). (Unsigned comment by Sigurd Dragon Slayer)

North East? That means Aberdeen to me. It will mean Maine to a Yank. And Queensland to the Aussie readers. This is an international encyclopedia. If you're going to say "the north east" or "south", you should include the word England! Kilts do not have their origins amongst the Norse at all. The word kilt is probably of Norse etymology, but it's not used in Gaelic. The Ancient Egyptians had kilts, they didn't take them off the Norse. Anyway, the idea that kilts are somehow from the Norse is a complete fallacy, i.e. bollocks. --MacRusgail 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange. Logically the North-east of England would naturally have more Celtic resonance than places south of here, but i would certainly say the general public identify more with the Norse roots than anyother. Also Sigurd Dragon Slayer, you refer to the Irish immigration to Newcastle, do not forgot the Wearside Shipyards which welcomed a large amount Irish to the docks when it was the worlds largest Ship building port, as well as the Pits around Wearside and County Durham, even the name of the old county bears irish influence. The people of the North-east, or Sunderland atleast has had a strong affinity with the irish through centuries or Immigration, maybe this can be an aknowledgement of their Celtic ethnicity? gazh 14:20, 01 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would the North-east of England 'logically ... have more Celtic resonance'? garik 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, from the articles i have read in the past the original Celts of Britain were seemingly pushed to the extreme parts of the Island by the waves of Romans, Angles etc and as the majority of their settlements did not get as far west as Wales or often not as far north as Yorkshire, that would logically lead me to suggest that the North-east would have more Celtic heritage. If i have missed something please point it out. gazh 11:14, 02 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends partly on whether you buy the view of the Celts really being pushed anywhere. A lot of historians now think it was more a case of assimilation than anything else. This was almost certainly true in the case of the Romans, and the Germanic invaders/settlers may well have been much fewer in number than was thought. This kind of thing is disputable though, since evidence is unreliable. But I'm confused in any case by your claim that the Germanic settlers didn't get as far north as Yorkshire. They got far enough north, after all, to settle in southern Scotland, and a Germanic kingdom was established in Northumberland in 547 (if the Wikipedia article is anything to go by). Cumbria, in the North-West, remained a Brythonic kingdom for a while longer (which should not surprise us, considering the name and the fact that the Cumbric language survived till about the 11th century). garik 10:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well i'm certainly not 'claiming' that these pre-Germany Germans did not get as far as Yorkshire, i think there is evidence that they even traded in the Highlands and Orkneys, although i doubt any significant population settled there. The point i was making, is that as the majority of their main settlements were in the Southern half of England, as anything north of Yorkshire was often viewed as hostile, from what i've read. From this, i would come to the conclusion that at this point these settlers would have been a minority in the Northern half of England as well as Wales and Scotland. The Industrial 'boom' saw Leeds, Manchester and in general the North-West receive a load of immigration from the South (thus increasing the germanic presence) as well as the rest of Britain, the North-east did not have this 'boom'. Apologies for my choice of words, i really can't be arsed, interesting debate however. gazh 12:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. The fact that a kingdom was established there implies more than a tiny presence to me, but as I said, there are even those who doubt that they came in very large numbers in the South. And there are others still who reckon there were Germanic settlements in Britain before the Romans even. You may be right that the South was somewhat more Germanic-dominated from earlier, but it was the West that seems to have held out the longest, in any case: Cumbria, Wales, Cornwall. Very little of this is based on logic, however, so much as intuition. And let's not forget that the (Germanic) Vikings left a deep mark on most of the North of England, long before the Industrial Revolution. garik 11:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean Northumbria in reference to the established kingdom, aye? I certainly wouldn't attempt to play-down the importance of the Vikings to this region, the influence is massive no question, much like it is on the east coast of Scotland. Although the Vikings and 'pre-Germans' belonged to the same group i certainly see them apart. Much of my interest in this subject is down to the blinkered views of Internationals who view all English as Anglo-Saxon, often with a vague sence of negativity. Thanks for the debate garik, i hope i made you think half as much you have made me. gazh 13:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Northumbria was certainly highly influenced by Celtic peoples (Old North, Lindisfarne founded from Iona, Aldfrith of Northumbria - King of Northumbria and Gaelic poet), and their music certainly bears some supposed Celtic hallmarks, partly due to cross border influence. No one has mentioned the fact that Tyneside also had large Scottish immigration in modern times, and not just from the Border region, but as far afield as Aberdeen and the Highlands. --MacRusgail 19:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Immigration to Tyneside? I wasn't aware of it, i know that Wearside has throughout history had massive immigartion from both Scotland and Ireland and Sunderland was virtually the last Catholic town of England to fall. Aswell as this, during the civil war Sunderland who represented the Parliamentarians defeated the Newcastle based Royalists with help from the Scots, as a result Wearsiders went on to seize Tyneside - much to the delight of us Mackems to this day. gazh 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking in my modern times, you know, 19th century to early 20th century. There were Scottish regiments raised from Tyneside in both world wars. (Maybe that's why there was fewer of them about in your lifetime! 8() --MacRusgail 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't think many people would doubt that the North-east of England shares many common traits with 'Celtic' peoples, even if we maybe arn't of Celt origons ourselves. gazh 10:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt it exactly, but I'm very wary of such claims, simply because the North-East of England almost certainly shares many common traits with almost any European (especially Northern European) ethnic or cultural group you might care to name; conversely, I know of no European ethnic, cultural or geographical group that doesn't share many common traits with 'Celtic' peoples. Now, I'm not saying that the North-East a priori does not exhibit more 'Celtic' cultural traits than, say, the South-East of England, but for this claim to be worth anything at all, we have to list quite specifically the traits we are referring to (ideally in some principled way -- selecting and quantifying traits is far from a trivial task) and compare this region methodically with other regions on that basis. The same goes, moreover, for those regions considered 'most Celtic' by virtue of still possessing a Celtic language. Defined purely on such a linguistic basis (and language, after all, is the most solid basis for defining the Celts historically), Wales and Ireland and Brittany could be considered modern Celtic areas to the exclusion of, say, Norway, Spain and England. A principled comparison of other cultural traits, however, may well group the Welsh more happily with the English than with the Irish. garik 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest my knowledge on this subject is not advanced enough to begin a list of cultural similarities, i am not a student of the subject - just an interested reader. As well as this i certainly wasn't looking for any kind of approval nor was i even ever considering an attempt at getting the North-east onto this article. If you were to explore this 'list' idea further i would certainly chip in with any info on the North-east i can offer, being born, raised and still residing here i'd say i know a fair bit about the cultural identity and people of the region. gazh 10:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to add it, you should stop calling it the "north east". No offence, but this is an international encyclopedia.--MacRusgail 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's quite true. My point about the list and the principled comparison of different European regions is that it's a very big task---I could imagine it as a plausible PhD topic. Unless someone else has already published a comparison of the Celticity of different European, or even just British, regions based on a seriously selected list of traits, then we can't put anything like it in the article. Most importantly, we need to be very clear what we mean by the word when we say a region is Celtic, or more or less Celtic than some other. That's presumably why organisations like the Celtic League base it on the possession of a modern Celtic language: it's one really obvious, concrete, clearly Celtic trait that is hard to deny. Most other such traits are infuriatingly slippery. garik 20:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

MacRusgail, apologies for that however we are speaking in the discussuon section of 'North East England', i'm sure readers understand what we're on about. Garik, valid points, as i said it's certainly a task above myself which is a big shame because i think the region has a decent shout of getting some acknowledgement, or at least a mention on the article. gazh 09:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, North-Eastern England was more Germanic than the south, Gazh. The people of Kent even acknowledges that major 'mixing' with the Celts. Northumbria (Yorkshire, Northumberland, East-Lowland Scotland, Durham and Sunderland etc) seems to have the least Celtic blood than the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. I believe this is down to the remoteness of the region (less-Celts lived hear than anywhere else) and the violent Northumbrian monarchs like 'Aethelfrith'. It is worth noting that the Angle kingdoms (Northumbria, East Anglia and Mercia (this likely had the most mixing with Celts due to alliences against Northumbria) are more Germanic than the Saxon (Sussex, Wessex) and Jutish (Kent) kingdoms.

Obviously we all have Celtic genetics, but I believe all Germans from Austria, Deutchland and Switzlerland do also. King Óðinn The Aesir 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest, i didn't reply sooner because your post confused me, your points seem to be all over the shop, and i doubt many of them hold truth. The North-east has less Celt blood because of it's remoteness, so are you suggesting that the land was barren before the Germanic settlers came across? Gazh 12:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Back to the topic, in comparison to the North-West the accent is alot less 'English' sounding and can be harsh for a person not from the region (however the Scots usually don't have a problem understanding a broad NE accent) to understand, i know this first-hand as my work requires me to speak with people throughout Britain, and i cannot speak with someone south of Yorkshire in the same way i would speak to someone from north of Yorkshire, i'm required to have an 'extra' accent with a different dialect so to speak. Gazh 11:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have edited this article

As i thought it was expressing to strongly th political views of a few people who are seeking to promote areas of england as celtic nations. I have left references in for this but toned them down to a realistic level. The article sould be about 'modern celts' whereas orginally it was more an article about this viewpoint which is a tiny proportion of the 'modern celts' subject and a recent devolpement.I also thought this not as siginificant as the continous argument regarding galicia, which it overshadowed. Perhaps instead a realistic 'celtic remains in england' page would be more appropiate. bg

It's actually not your place to do that Enzedbrit 07:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely true - but its our perogative to move stuff if its pov or useless ;) Robdurbar 11:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have thought that it should be debated on here first. I'd have taken part in it, but only recently 'discovered' the talk pages. Durham uni eh? My mam's family's all from Peterlee Enzedbrit 15:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you from Swindon NZB? --MacRusgail 15:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was born there and lived there until 9 months. My paternal family had been there since 1950 Enzedbrit 22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference to England

The reference to England on this page is as legitimate, far more so as I'm concerned, than any place in Spain. To remove it should require discussion on here first. If not, it will be replaced. Enzedbrit 22:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

England should have its own subsection. --MacRusgail 15:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We are seeing now someone state things like 'English atrocity' for the Irish potato famine, even though the UK government was in control of Ireland, England didn't exist as an independent country and English people died in the famine; independence from England although England is a body of the United Kingdom, etc. I will revert this and I urge others to do the same Enzedbrit 06:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The victims of the famine were British subjects, as was everyone else involved in the famine. In general it would be better to avoid terms of nationality in this context as they tend to sound emotive and accusing. Perhaps "government-aggravated tragedy". Gagonis 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cumbrian

The Cumbrian language page doesn't seems to imply that Cumbrian was different from Welsh. Can you provide proof that Cumbrian was the same as Welsh? HillaryMawdesley 07:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Very little remains of the Brythonic of the "Old North". Apart from the works of Aneirin and Taliesin, which are firmly classified as Welsh literature, we have little more than placename elements and odd words. It is up to those who claim separate linguistic status for Cumbric/Cumbrian to provide justification. While the speech of any area is liable to develop its own characterisics, there is virtually nothing in the Cumbria/Strathclyde (etc.) Brythonic that we have that sets it apart from northern Welsh. Gagonis 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Cumbrian language has been recreated from Old Welsh and fragmented sources of actual Cumbrian, Cumbrian is a different but closely related language to Welsh but split back in its history before the language was lost. (unsigned comment by User:86.145.140.140)

No it hasn't. Bits of Cumbrian have been found. At last count, there were two reconstructions of "Cumbrian" on the go, with less than two hundred words a piece. You couldn't discuss the football in them could you? --MacRusgail 18:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

English and Celtic

I think someone should consider creating an extensive article on the regions of England with Celtic backgrounds (it appears Cornwall is already well covered). -gazh

Cornwall is arguably not part of England. --MacRusgail 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The other problem is that all of Britain has some Celtic background. garik 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Only in the same sort of sense that one could say Central Turkey (aka Galatia) has a Celtic background... --Krsont 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you - using "Britain" in the purely geographical sense, rather than its political rebranding. All Europe - just about - from Portugal to Iceland, and Ireland to Turkey & the Ukraine has some Celtic background. The parts that don't - that I can think of, offhand, would be the Scandinavian peninsula, the far south of Italy, and large chunks of the former Soviet Union in Europe. --MacRusgail 18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

England was entirly Celtic speaking until the 5th century when most of europe wasn't. Its not hard to find things that are Celtic in England today.HillaryMawdesley 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Entirely" is highly debatable. Apart from the fact that it was run by Latin speaking Romans for hundreds of years (unlike Scotland), they brought with them speakers of a number of different languages. One hypothesis is that the Anglo-Saxons arrived with the Romans, and that the Germanic speakers of England date from these times. As for your latter statement, it depends what you mean by "Celtic". If you mean the airy-fairy New Age notion of Celtic, then it is possible to find Celtic England on every other street corner. If you mean something substantial, this varies by region. Devon, Cheshire and Cumberland would score better than Kent and Essex.--MacRusgail 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Theres no sensible argument that Cornwall is not a part of England. siarach 12:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Normally I respect your opinion, but this is really a case of "you should know better". There are plenty of such arguments. I suggest you toddle along to constitutional status of Cornwall for a start. Cornwall is no more a proper part of England than Wales is. --MacRusgail 19:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right i should have known better. The issue is by no means as clear cut as i stated yesterday although i dont agree with the comparisons you make between Cornwall and Wales and certainly not with the one you make between Cornwall and Scotland. siarach 09:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe that's quite accurate. The constitutional status of Wales and Cornwall are different: legally, Wales is distinct from England and contains its own counties; Cornwall, on the other hand, is treated as a county of England. Laws that are passed for "England" apply to Cornwall, but not to Wales (this was not always the case). This is not to say that Cornwall has no claim to be considered as separate from England in some sense, but certainly its modern legal status differs from that of Wales (which was at one time, but is no longer, treated officially as a part of England). garik 19:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I do note that you say "proper part of England", so I suppose you're not referring to its present legal status. The problem is that "proper" is a somewhat subjective term. I do acknowledge, though, that Cornwall may have a better historical claim than some other official parts of England to be treated as separate. garik 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually not all English laws do apply to Cornwall historically. Notably issues such as dying intestate, sea bed laws, fossicking etc. There's more than you'd think. There have also been attempts to rewrite the history of Monmouthshire, and Berwick-upon-Tweed, in the recent centuries, despite ancient historical precedent otherwise.--MacRusgail 21:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC) p.s. Cornwall must be about the only "English county" to have further counties inside it.

Since when did Cornwall have other counites inside it it was detainly divided into hundreds but I dont think they were ever designated counties and to say its the only county so divided is in fact false look at the histories of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Sussex. Also it could be claimed that Lancashire and Durham have been seperate entities to England in the past.Penrithguy 17:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Elitist and/or racist "Celts"

Seemingly discluding the English from having any Celtic heritage. gazh

How? England is included several times in this article. garik 13:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This exclusion is due to the fact that England has no Celtic language. They don't consider Cornwall part of it by the way. See relevant articles.--MacRusgail 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. The concept of Celt has always had more to do with language than anything else. No one's disputing that a very large proportion of English people have Celtic ancestors. What exactly would you like to see done differently in the article? garik 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the rant, i'm not entirely sure what changes i would like to see - maybe a change in attitudes towards the English on this subject, the 'English' is such a broad word and it's really almost impossible to fit all its people under that umbrella. Example, recently on a trip to Edinburgh (st. paddys day) i was constantly asked where in Belfast i was from, and vice-versa the Irish all thought i was Scottish - i know thats more a question of accent and dialect as opposed to actual language. Lowlands Scots is considered a celtic 'language' on the main page, surely it's a dialect? -gazh 09:59, 04 Apr 07

There's no real answer to the question of whether lowland Scots is a language or a dialect, since there's no real principled way to distinguish between languages and dialects: Spanish and Portuguese, after all, are mutually intelligible, and possibly more so to some speakers than English and broad Scots. In any case, it's not a Celtic language at all. Like English, it's a Germanic language. It just happens, like English, to be spoken by a large number of people whose ancestors did speak a Celtic language. garik 09:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Lowland Scots, Galo, English and French are not Celtic languages. Hence I put them in brackets.--MacRusgail 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why include those languages at all then in this page as they are not Celtic languages? --Rhydd Meddwl 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Because they are currently spoken by millions of people from the Celtic regions/countries. Some of whom speak Celtic languages to boot. 99.9% of Celtic language speakers use English or French on a regular basis, and are fluent in them. The exception would be the Chubut Welsh in Patagonia, some of whom would be more competent in Welsh and Spanish, than English and French. --MacRusgail 18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Practically all of whom. Welcome back, by the way, Rhydd Meddwl.garik 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, England never spoke a Celtic language. England is a creation of the Anglo-Saxons. There were Celtic people in the geographical region that is now England but that isn't enough to make the clearly Germanic England a Celtic country.

Also Cornwall was never unified with England via an act of union and thus isn't actually part of England and shouldn't be (a great culture was damaged by the Englsh and a language almost killed). Cumbria, while actually culturally different from Northumberland, Sunderland, Durham etc..., is part of England but is still culturally Celtic and they spoke a Celtic language until quite late on. Most place names in Cumbria are still Celtic.

England isn't Celtic by Cumbria and Cornwall are. East Lowland Scotland until the Firth of Forth isn't very Celtic either and is similar to Northumberland as it also made up part of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria. Scotland is primarily Celtic though and should be pround of that fact! King Óðinn The Aesir 22:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's an anachronism to say that "England" had a Celtic language (depending on how late you consider Cumbria to have survived, and whether you consider Cornwall to be part of England or not – let's not get into a debate about that right now). However, I think the reason for mentioning it here is that the area that we now call England, like France, would seem to have been once populated mainly by people who spoke a Celtic language. In this respect, it differs from many other areas of Europe. That, I believe, is the point. garik 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Parts of modern day England have spoken Celtic languages into the Middle Ages. I believe parts of the Welsh Marches spoke Welsh into the modern period. --MacRusgail 23:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually yes, you're quite right. garik 23:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Northumbrian issues

I need to have it explained to me how the Northumberland county council is not a fair source of information when referring to aspects of Northumbrian culture which, as far I was honestly concerned, were unquestionably Northumbrian until this very day, without in any way detracting from how these cultural icons are viewed in Scotland. Enzedbrit 23:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been no discussion or justification on why these facts should be removed. If anything, it appears to be an anti-English or anti-Northumbrian bias in this matter. Facts have been provided, from a reliable source, as to the justification of this cultural heritage. I question the logic and the sentiment behind any attempt to remove these details from the Wikipedia, especially when none is provided nor debate afforded its due place on this discussion forum. Enzedbrit 01:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it is utter tosh to say it is the "Northumbrian tartan". That tartan is known from both sides of the Border. The earliest example of it comes from Falkirk, which was never in Northumbria. This is not anti-English. --MacRusgail 16:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) p.s When are you moving to England anyway? You've been moaning about New Zealand for over a decade.

"Utter Tosh"? I'm sure that MaisOui! has a citation for that.

I beg to disagree anyway. The tartan IS known as the Northumbrian tartan. As it is known by a different name, you would be best to put an aside of 'also known as the ... tartan'. This is something that you need to take up with the Northumbrian people. As to that comment about NZ, NZ is my home and I haven't been moaning about it, or England, or anywhere, ever. Enzedbrit 00:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC) p.s. As for over a decade, I have only been using Wikipedia for two years.

I have removed a section of dialogue here that has no business being on the Modern Celts talk page. I also advise against communication with the user MacRusgail for matters of personal safety. Enzedbrit 23:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Cumbria again

I've altered the wording slightly. Whilst it is true that some elements of Celtic culture are probably alive in England and Cumbria might have more than most. It is a huge exagerration to say that a Celtic identity exists in Cumbria for more than a handful of people. Cumbria is not all that different from North Lancashire, Northumberland, County Durham or North Yorkshire.GordyB 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think you're right. I know people from that part of the world who hate the term "Cumbrian" because they associate it with a modern entity. I have had this same argument over the hijacking of "Highland" by Highland region, which not only cuts out over half the Scottish Highlands, but includes Lowland areas too. I wasn't aware of the West Riding business - I take it this is the south east corner - there can't be very much Yorkshire in Cumbria... I thought the Lancashire part was fairly small. --MacRusgail 15:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Lancashire area is quite extensive and extends up from Barrow as far as Coniston. Dent and Sedbergh were originally West Riding of Yorkshire and possibly Kirby Lonsdale as well (though I'd need to check) but the Yorkshire part is relatively small. I suspect that Ezedbrit was at work on this article as it contained quite a lot of the same inaccuracies that plagued the Cumbria article.

English people consider themselves to be mongrels and include Celts among their ancestors but to say that any part of England (other than Cornwall) is Celtic is pushing it; you might as well say that Yorkshire is Danish and London is Roman. My objections were that the article claimed for example that Cumbria is based on Rheged; it isn't. Cumbria was based on the efficient delivery of services by local authorities not an attempt to recreate an ancient kingdom.GordyB 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Kirkby Lonsdale (not Kirby) despite its name has nver been within Lancashire or the West Riding of Yorkshire since the county of Westmorland was created in the 12th century. The area was included in Yorkshire in the Domesday Book though.Penrithguy 17:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Silly Billy

Looks like we have another 'angry celt' who has decided to remove England from the list of nations with a large Celtic population. Well done lad, fight the power! - I bet there are alot of narked 'celts' because of Englands inclusion on that list, especially since it would seem that England could be the most populated 'celt' nation. Gazh 10:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

England's position as a "[Modern] Celtic Nation" is controversial - but if accepted, the list would have to include France, and possibly other countries.--MacRusgail 16:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

England is a Celtic nation in regards to the lineage of it's people, but we will never be recognised within something like the Celtic league, us English are seen as a direct image of what is Anti-Celtic - oddly hilarious seen as some of us are undoubtably most Celt than the 'celts' themselves. The barriers of a Celtic language would not be removed simply because it would open the door for an English argument. I personally find it great that we were on the Celtic populations list, it was a big two fingers to all the plastic paddys with blinkers on, 30 million read it and weep. Gazh 22:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, the main reason for the "Celtic language barrier" is that there isn't any other very good way to define Celtic. You only consider England Celtic because many of its people are descended from speakers of a Celtic language. The Celtic League could open up to include places where a Celtic language was once spoken, but that would mean a very large area of Europe, including a large part of Turkey. garik 22:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Gazh - most of Europe from Iceland to Portugal to the Ukraine to Turkey is "Celtic in its lineage". England has not preserved its Celtic language and precious little of its Celtic culture.

Wikipedia is not for "sticking fingers" up, it's for facts. The figure of 30 million for England strikes me as inaccurate anyway - what's it based on? Anyone whose ancestry didn't immigrate within the past 500 years? England's population is bigger than that. --MacRusgail 22:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point garik, i never denied it was a good defining line - but let's hope us English don't go and revive our old tounge eh? although i would bet if such a movement started to roll they'd claim to be non-English and solely 'Celt', so you may all breathe a sigh of relief, but who knows? maybe there we be a few who can be proud to be both, like myself. Gazh 10:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You could all start speaking Welsh or Cornish. Those are the nearest modern descendants of the old Celtic tongue of England. garik 12:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good one. Is there even enough of the old language recorded to begin putting it back together? 81.97.8.242 16:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's very little recorded in the Brythonic dialects of what is now England. They were dialects of Old Welsh (or late Brythonic, if you like). The poem Y Gododdin, written in what is now Scotland, is easily recognisable as Welsh, so one would assume that the dialects to the south didn't differ too much. In other words, an English person wanting to revive the Old Celtic language of England might as well just revive Old Welsh. But then why revive Old Welsh (and presumably modernise it) when modern Welsh is still spoken? You might as well revive vernacular Latin.garik 20:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(I realise, of course, that Gazh wasn't serious about people reviving English Brythonic, but I can't help imagining that someone might start trying...)garik 20:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well actually garik i was partly serious, and that is why i asked if there was much of the language recorded (was using my mams computer, hence no log-in). As i have said previously i am no academic, so ofcourse i could never begin to get the ball rolling, i wouldn't even know how to find people who would be interested in that - infact my only interaction and 'conversation' on this subject is on the discussion pages of this website. I'd like to know more about Cumbric as it is possibly what my region was speaking, or certainly closer to it than Welsh (if i were to hazard a guess).

Also garik, 'to the south' - I'm sure after the kingdom was named England people were still speaking our Celt language, it's ok to refer to that land as England. Gazh 09:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they probably were. But at the time of Aneirin, who wrote Y Gododdin, there was no entity called England. I think it's good to avoid anachronisms in these matters! I also agree that it would be fascinating to try to reconstruct Cumbric, and I admit I was probably rather overstating its similarity to the ancestors of Welsh and Cornish: we should probably think in terms of a dialect continuum, in which nearby dialects were very similar and distant dialects less mutually comprehensible. Think of Spanish, Catalan and Portuguese, or English and Scots. Increasing isolation, as Yr Hen Ogledd was separated from the south west, would have emphasised the differences. But this is why we have to be careful of anachronism. Cumbric is a name applied not only to those dialects of Brythonic once spoken in what we now call Cumbria, but to a group of dialects spoken in the areas we now call Cumbria, Lowland Scotland and Northumbria (or parts of it). The problem for would-be reconstructers is that very little exists of it indeed. Poems like Y Gododdin were clearly written in an idiom that would have been comprehensible to Brythonic speakers all over Britain After all, it's far from incomprehensible to Welsh speakers today. It was probably written in a reasonably standardised literary form, so it doesn't help us much in reconstructing a Northern British idiom clearly distinct from other Brythonic dialects.

We also need to distinguish between reconstruction and revival. People have reconstructed, by comparing the modern Romance languages, the vernacular language of the Roman empire (as distinct from Classical Latin, a formal and literary language). But these people don't advocate learning this language and using it day-to-day: it's really just of academic interest. Revival, as in the case of Cornish and Hebrew, is something different. These languages, for different reasons, were brought back from the grave (or grave-edge) as spoken languages and promoted as languages that should be used today. I think that reconstructing Cumbric would be very interesting and worthwhile, but reviving it as a modern spoken language would be somewhat pointless, except as an enjoyable hobby. Either way, however, the sad fact is that the evidence is so scant as to make either task impossible. garik 11:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask again - where did the 30 million figure come from? It's twenty million less than the population of England. What the hell was it based on? --MacRusgail 20:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well garik, reconstruction would be the first stage - revival is something else that could happen as the result of the reconstruction, i don't think their is enough interest in it though - i'd love to here what the Celtic League would think about an English revival, probably negative?

I don't know where the 30M figure came from, i was simply restoring the what had been previously there. Gazh 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We had another removal of England from the list, can we lock that part somehow? Gazh 09:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See reason below. What evidience is there to support the inclusion of England? --sony-youth^pléigh 09:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I will answer your question with a question - if you don't mind, by removing England are you suggesting that it's people are not of Celt background? if you are suggesting this, where did we all suddenly appear from? Gazh 09:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See Brython or Celt (look also at the section about modern uses). This article is about Modern Celts. In the history of the that term, England (excluding Cornwall, and less often Devon and Cumbria) is not considered such.

There is much criticism of the concept of modern Celticity - one such criticism is that it is a means for Scottish/Welsh/Irish nationalists to isolate England from the rest of the British Isles. Whether that is true or not (or fair on the English), I am not about to judge. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

'In a modern context, the term "Celt" or "Celtic" can be used to denote areas where Celtic languages are spoken', surely then we should only be listing the population amount that can actually speak a Celtic language, as oppossed to the entire population? Gazh 09:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. See the map here. The (linguistic) counter argument is that Celtic languages are official languages of those areas (in Northern Ireland, Irish is not an official language per se but has equality with English, which is established as official through precedent), with the exception of Brittany and Cornwall. In the case of Britanny, it must be said that the area where Breton is spoken is largely the whole province. In the case of them all the languages are recognised languages of the entire region. However, the matter is not whether an individual person speaks a Celtic language or not. When speaking about ethnic groups, we are talking about mass identification. To go back to the linguistic argument, these are the areas where Celtic languages were spoken as the daily language into the modern era - that, with common histories (national myths), has a uniting force.

I'm looking up social-scientific opinion on "Modern Celts" (shared cultural persepctives etc.) and will drop them back here if I find any. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean Sony, it just seems like the line that is being drawn to denominate what is and what is not a Modern 'Celt' is the line at the feet of the English. It just feels that some people would like to draw a little box around us so they can welcome others in.

As for your second point, who exactly will you be getting the perspectives of? and will they include the English? As in my opinion, and i'm sure of others like me, we deserve to be heard. Gazh 11:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Social-scientific opinion about the concept of "Modern Celts", if SCO/IRE/WAL/IoM/BRI can be considered a cohesive cultural unit, etc. I assume that many analysis of this would test the qeustion: Are the English different?

A quick look around found this choise quote (from here):

... So-called ‘British’ histories were, until relatively recently, largely the histories of England and the English; the so called ‘Celtic’ nations of Scotland, Wales and Ireland were largely ignored, or where they were directly addressed, were largely problematised (Kearney, 1989;Colley, 1992). Likewise, as David McCrone observes of the early development of British sociology:

"British sociology simply accepted that ‘society’ was coterminous with the British state, unitary and highly centralised, driven by social change in the political and cultural heartland of southern Britain [i.e., England]. If there was a particular sociology of the ‘periphery’ – in Wales, Ireland and Scotland – it had to do with analysing a ‘traditional’, pre-capitalist way of life. It was judged to be the task of the sociologist of these parts merely to chart its decline and ultimate incorporation into ‘modern’ society, or so it seemed." (1992: 5)

This, of course, simply reminds the Welsh, Scots and other non-English peoples living in Britain that they continue to live in a multinational state dominated by the English (Connor, 1993; Crick, 1989, 1995; Miles, 1996). But it is further problematised by a second set of assumptions, about what it is to be English. The less contested, the more tacit, this identificatory category has been – or, more accurately, has been seen to be – the more it was an assumption that ‘the English’ were delimited as white, broadly Christian, and whatever was and is meant by ‘Anglo Saxon’ (perhaps it simply meant ‘not Celtic’). ...

(I don't know about the "until relatively recently" part - did you see A History of Modern Britain, last night, or any week? Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland sound like very far away places, don't you know? There be monsters: terrorists, coal miners and North Sea oilers.)

You could also take a look at this, I haven't read through it but it looks like a fun rant about the sudden out-burst of all things "Celtic". Neither are really what I'm looking for, though. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, i still feel aggrieved though, being English may have meant you got the glory and riches of the 'British', but i think this is a case of umbrella not being big enough. I ask you, was it just Wales, Scotland and Ireland that were the 'second class citizens' of Britain? while ofcourse the riches of England was shared evenly across England, aye? The thing i would ask is, as an Englishman, how exactly have i had any benefit from being English, over the Scots or Welsh under the British umbrella? When 'Modern Celts' speak or act negatively against the English, i think that negativity in completely misplaced through either miseducation or ignorance. Gazh 12:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>Ever see a population curve like this before? (See it against that of England and Wales for comparasion.) Of all the attocities commited in the name of the British state, the famine, in fairness, is the only one that was ever appologised for. I could add the one-third of the civilian population killed by Cromwell, the sacking of Cork, the shelling of the Liberties, the shooting of civil rights marchers, 288 years of crippled domestic politics under Poynings Law, the Corn Laws, the Penal Laws, prohibition on the sale or purchase of property, the outlawing of national sport, language, dress and custom under pain of treason, the plantation of Ulster, religious apartheit, exclusion from education, office and profession, the partition of my island, the highest fatalities in WW1, the longest times on the front, the highest rates of summary execution, the lowest rates of destertion, no entitlement to our own officiers, the deforestation of an entire land ... every burden, dear Gazh, that has been bourne by your people has been carried by mine as well; the difference lies in those that mine has had to carry for the benefit of yours.

Todays topic, however, is that of "Modern Celts." --sony-youth^pléigh 13:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately at start work at 1500GMT so i must leave now, but you have made some terrible mistakes regarding 'My people', is that my galway born Grandparents your refereing to? or my fathers side, a local family who were mostly local minors and shipbuilders? Prey tel me, how 'My people' carried yours, because please remember the crop blight affected lands further than Ireland, speak to you tonight. Gazh 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was replying to the question you asked "as an Englishman" (see your own question). --sony-youth^pléigh 13:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you re-read what i wrote as my point beginning "As an Englishman" did not even include Ireland, and i was talking on face value - for example being an Englishman, right now, in 2007, what are the benfits of my nationality over garik or MacRusgail (Welsh and Scots respectively, feel free to offer opinion guys) ? Gazh 09:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not about to enter into this here. If you want my opinions, I'm will to offer them, but on my (or your) talk page. The page here is only for improving this article. (For sure, I took liberties in extending Scottish/Welsh to Irish. I didn't mean to offend you, if you are, but it was just my honest opinion on a question you asked.) --sony-youth^pléigh 09:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right we should probably get closer to the topic, I've left you a response though - so we can discuss that further. As for England being removed from the list, I'm disappointed that it's took a Britannia Website to knock us from that list, afterall it's still popular belief throughout the world that we differ from 'Modern Celts' because we are 'Anglo-Saxon', something that recent studies have somewhat rubbished infavour that we are ALOT more similar than once believed. I would hazard a guess that noone besides myself really gives a toss that England is no-longer on that list so i'm probably fighting a losing battle, i would urge anyone that comes across a source about the English being more Celt that is commonly believed to cite it, that would be much appreciated. Gazh 10:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

REAL English tartan

Earlier on I was complaining about the use of the term "Northumbrian tartan", because while it is found there, it is not exclusively "Northumbrian". However, you might be interested to know that there is an actual English tartan these days. I was reading about it in the Scots Magazine yesterday. Modern invention yes, but a tartan specifically for English folk. --MacRusgail 19:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I really couldn't give a crap anymore. Thank you so much.Enzedbrit 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, go and see a shrink, or something. Or move to England like you've been talking about online for the past decade or so. --MacRusgail 16:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You are a loonatic.Enzedbrit 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Lunatic" actually. And please don't vandalise my postings again. --MacRusgail 16:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. Move to England, don't just talk about it. (Or at least take a long holiday there)

As long as you know what you are. Loon, loonatic, lunatic, freak or stalker. When did I vandalise your postings? What's your obsession with people moving to England? Enzedbrit 02:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Loon" means a lad. The spelling is "lunatic". You vandalised my posting on this very talk page by removing a whole section for something like "security reasons", as you put it. I don't have an obsession with moving to England, but you do. You used to blether on about it on the various newsgroups. You've been pushing the same agenda all over the place. Oh, and I haven't been "stalking" you, it's just you've been vandalising material of interest to me all over the internet for at least ten/eleven years, and so have the misfortune to keep on encountering you. You're a married man now, and should have grown up by now. --MacRusgail 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah that - yes, I removed something you wrote. I would get off your high horse though - you've removed plenty of my postings. I think that stalker is a good word for you, or dreamer, or retard, or just plain old geek. To have created a persona for me like this. Technically too, I'm not married because I don't have that right, but I appreciate the honour. If you have known me on wikipedia before I were married and perhaps fancied me, and are bitter now that you can't have me, hence this England/agenda stuff, I'm flattered, but I doubt that you're my type. Enzedbrit 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea what you look like, and I'm not attracted to men anyway. You're just a weird guy who keeps on cropping up, telling all the people in the British Isles what they're like, without doing proper research or actually living there since your childhood in Swinedung. You've never lived in Scotland in your life, yet seem to know the place better than we do. They are other people on here who think England is Celtic, but they do it in a non-psychotic manner. --MacRusgail 14:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment MacRusgail, even if it was at the expense of NZBrit, glad i'm not looked at as the trite northern wanker that i am, cheers!. Gazh 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay you creep, this wore thin a long time ago. I have never lived in Swindon, I was just born there, I have lived in England many years, and on here, I am more than happy to defend Northumbrian heritage from you, and fail to see how this applies to all England being Celtic. What's more, the fact that you've even created this thread and its direction is a sign of your own psychotic tendancies. As to you being straight, thank God - only a breeder could be so wanky.Enzedbrit 03:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The thread was to point out that there is a (modern) tartan specifically for English people. However, you have lived in New Zealand most of your life (despite protesting your Englishness - must have been something at school) - and have almost certainly not lived in any of the areas of western and northern England (let alone Scotland and Wales) you keep informing us about. You're right - Northumberland has some Celtic heritage, but you could at least pick up on the genuine stuff, like the patterns in its music or words in its dialect. --MacRusgail 12:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. Thanks for the phobic comment in the last sentence; just goes to prove breeders (or fast breeder reactors) don't have the monopoly on bigotry.

• Oh my bloody GOD would you SHUT the **** up with this crap about me going on about England and talking to you 10 years ago and all this because it's beyond a joke! Seriously you are a damned no-life mental case! Yes, you are a breeder - wow, such bigotry on my part, you retarted smeg. Be thankful that a word as harsh as 'breeder' is all you have to put up with, and not words worse, let alone verbal abuse and physical violence that comes with being Queer - yes, 'breeder' is really equivalent to that. BREEDER BREEDER BREEDER! Now rack off. Enzedbrit 12:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. Yes, never lived in Northumbria, my life there just a dream and my time at BT and ASDA just a nightmare

Would both of you please move on? I'd hate to have to dole out blocks for personal attacks and incivility but I will if I have to. Lexicon (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted something about an English tartan and get reams of abuse in return. So much for sticking to the facts...--MacRusgail 16:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who started it, or who's in the right or in the wrong, Lexicon is right. Let's just move on. garik 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Info box, English and {fact}

I've taken England out of the 'main' section of the info box. For a starting citation, see the Britannica Map of Ethnic Culture Areas (I don't have access to the main Europe Culture Groups article, if anyone else does, I'd like to know what it says).

Also, I'm unsure what citations are being asked for in the info box: is it citations for the populations of the various area or citations that these are part of the celtic ethnic/cultural group? --sony-youth^pléigh 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Those lines in Britain seem very arbitrary, and it cuts through half of Devon too. I think that it should be taken as a source for sure, but not an expert one. It seems a mix of genuine cultural boundaries and linguistic evidence. I fail to see how someone in Saltney is going to find more in common with someone in Gretna Green than with someone across the road in Chester, and how there's a marked difference in life between rural communities in England and those in Scotland. It's a question of the ages.

I also don't know where the numbers associated with various populations came from in this link. This also seems somewhat arbitrary.Enzedbrit 02:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it's a low detail map. If you were really more observant, you'd notice that the Basques were missing. --MacRusgail 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a low detail map. No question, no argument, wasn't denying it. The Basques are missing, saw that, understood it, it wasn't even relevant to my posting. Great way to take a swipe. Rats off to you. Enzedbrit 04:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your point about Devon is right, but there's a few other errors in the map on Continental Europe - e.g. no Basques, and also not reflecting the complex situation in the Balkans. It also marks Silesia as German - which it may have been sixty years ago, but isn't now. --MacRusgail 14:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I put England into the "other" part of the box. I think that's fair enough, like North America, Australasia and Argentina, there is a fair immigrant population there, if nothing else. Some areas of England are evidently far more Celtic than others, but how you decide which areas, and how many people come from them, is something else. --MacRusgail 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good old Argentina - look at what those 300 Welsh immigrants to Trelew and Rawson in the 19th century have given it today to be included on this list. Enzedbrit 04:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You never do your research do you? Patagonian sheep farming was pioneered by Scots, Argentina's railways used extensive Irish labour etc, etc. And that's without going into the Welsh business. Argentina and Canada are the only places outside Europe with significant populations speaking a Celtic language - for that alone they are worth including, but don't let this get in the way of your monoagenda though. Oh, and there's also a significant Anglo-Argentine population - where do you think the rugby and polo come from? Peron had it in for them. --MacRusgail 14:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply, but i believe England should be re-instated, i@ve looked at the Map and Article a few times and i have to say they're a really poor source, for one the demographics of Britain are not that simple, you don@y suddenly hop over the border to Scotland into a different culture, likewise coming back not everyone is suddenly drinking tea and riding horse and cart with a top hat, and as someone pointed out the Basques are missing, i'd say this 'map' is out-of-date and quite wrong. Gazh 06:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Similarly moving from Italy to Austria, or the Netherlands to Germany. I'm sure you will see I'm sure that Poland is divided east-to-west, and that the south east of France is different from other parts. Do you think that if you walked from one of these area to another, you would reach a point where with one step the world would change, people would start acting differently, and what was down would be up as if you had stepped into a parallel universe? Do you think that if immediately upon seeing this change, if you paused, right at that point, raised your foot and slowly laid it backwards on the road behind you once again, the change would reverse, and you would find yourself on the standing with one foot rested on the portal between Kansas and Oz?

Why don't you try finding sources to either (positively) prove that England is is a Modern Celtic nation/culture, or (negatively) that SCO/WAL/IRE are more British than Modern Celtic? I would advise staying away from (traditional) music, dance, clothes or language as these would would be dead-ends for what you want to prove (in fact would prove the opposite). As these areas are also known for separatism, and are separate legal jurisdictions, I would advise staying away from politics and law too. But maybe you can find something. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly, ofcourse their is no sudden parallel universe-like change - but there is usually some striking differences, the USA-Canada border for example, if you look at it from Google Earth you can see the different farming methods quite clear. I will say this, Sunderland has more in common culturally and in customs with Edinburgh or Glasgow than it does Nottingham or Birmingham, ofcourse these things are the same up and down the Island, like shades of grey so to speak, i just don't see how the England/Scotland border is a relevant for a ethnics and culture map - infact is bloody absurd to suggest such a thing, according to this map Sunderland, Newcastle, Carlisle, Berwick, Alnwick and Ashington are all culturally diffrent from Edinburgh and Glasgow - that alone is enough for me to wipe my arse with that 'Source'. Gazh 13:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cross a nation-state border such as the USA-Canada one brings about sudden changes in government (and so a changes in farming subsidies, initiatives, planning legislation, etc. immediately relevant to the example you just gave). This results in striking changes even where there are only small changes in of culture (think of driving onto a ferry at Calais on the right hand side, then driving off in Dover on the left hand side - has so much of a change in driving culture taken place in your crossing of the Channel?). These kinds of changes do not apply (at the present time at least) to the Scottish-English border. Do you have a source which contradict Britannica (as an encyclopedia, Britannica is already a summary of many reliable sources compiled by experts in an area)? --sony-youth^pléigh 14:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, do i need a Source to prove that another Source is incorrect? I honestly think it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the England-Scotland border is a border of some kind ethnic/culture differences betwen the two, the thought is just wrong; it is even well known outside the region that cultural similarities are shared between the NE of England and Lowlands Scotland. Gazh 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --sony-youth^pléigh 10:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A Source to show that ethnically we are not so different, i think you may recognise it:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006

Would you like me to provide a source showing that there are cultural similarities between NE England and Lowlands Scotland? Gazh 09:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I do recognise it in fact, but genes are not the same a ethnicity. The last quote is quite nice though and I think it should be put in the English section:

"In the 19th century, the idea of Anglo-Saxon superiority was very widespread. At the moment, there is a resurgence of Celtic identity, which had been trampled on. It's very vibrant and obvious at the moment.

"... the cornerstone of Celtic identity is that they are not English. However, to try to base that, as some do, on an idea that ... Celtic countries are somehow descended from a race of Celts, which the English are not, is not right. ..."

This does not however say that the English are Modern Celts. In fact, it attributes the Anglo-Saxon identity to the English and draws a distinction between that and the Celtic identity of the Welsh and Scots. What it does say, is that dispite those contrasting identities, both English (Anglo-Saxons) and Scottish and Welsh (Celts) are decended from the same people. Where they departed in identity, it does not say, but it does say that the idea was present in the 19th century at least. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Gazh, I think you are putting too much emphasis on identites such as these as being defining qualities. We are all a patchwork of identities. I, myself, would put "Celt" rather late on a list of identities which I would find defining (certainly Irish, European, male, educated etc. would be far above it). Belonging to the same nation state is, in more cases that not, a far more defining relationship between people than something like "Celtic." It is far more ubiquitious and far more life-affecting. Saying that Scotland or Wales are Celtic, and that England is not, is a way of seperating Scotland and Wales from England (maybe even its original purpose), but it doesn't do a very good job, or even a very serious one, but 9 times out of 10 that's not the purpose. But it does do a very good job of binding together those countries with a (rather misled) sense of shared history and relationship to a national center. It has some basis in fact, every myth need to, but its not real, or at least certainly no more real than "British" or "English" or "Irish" is. Its just something to band around. There really is no need to get so worked up over. Its not the end of the world.

I definately agree, and i am certainly not getting worked up. I guess the main point of my presence on these boards is a sence of injustice that i feel from them, i don't mean that because i am not being included under a 'Celtic' banner, it has more to do with my local identity and i want people to recognise that. Yes i am English, and it would be easy for me to reject my nationality and say i am this or that in order for me to make my point that the North-east is different seem more understandable, but why should i? it makes my task much more difficult this way, but i am too proud an Englishman to do it, i just wouldn't be able to stomach myself.

One of the main things i am battling is the one you have posted, that dreaded border, that and ofcourse silly stereotypes. I want the whole world to know that England is not as cut and dry as is thought! It may be one nation, but it is very different throughout and definately not Anglo-Saxon, a negative word even outside of Britain and Ireland i may add. Like we discussed Sony, Yes 'England' did do some terrible things to the Irish, but in what way does that have anything to do with me? and why because of a border am i automatically but into that negative catagory when my ancestory (the english ones atleast) were probably simple fishermen shitting themselves about when the next Scottish Pillaging Clan would head south.

You know how the Celtic peoples were oppressed, and how in contemporary culture it is 'cool' to support historically oppressed peoples, well i guess i feel my people, from my region, because of this false popular belief, are in an odd modern way being oppressed by the 'Modern' Celts, and maybe the NE didn't keep hold of it's old tounge as long as Western locations, but FFS you lot did have a better geographic location for holding out.

I know some of you feel that being England and Celt is a massive contradiction, and i would have to say it is, because my opinions and emotions on the subject are all over the shop, i am constantly back-tracking my posts and finding myself in disagreement with them, being English and Celtic sometimes puts me in two seperate charactors. Gazh 11:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

""... the cornerstone of Celtic identity is that they are not English. However, to try to base that, as some do, on an idea that ... Celtic countries are somehow descended from a race of Celts, which the English are not, is not right. ..."

Except they don't - firstly, the Bretons have no particular need not to be English, and secondly it is based around language. Actually it doesn't matter if the ancient and modern Celts are one and the same at all.--MacRusgail 16:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

England on population list

OK, so England is still in the list but we currently do not have an accurate population-figure. Glancing through Wikipedia a figure of 498,800 is our latest number for the current population within Cumbria, which is probably the most widely accepted 'Celtic' area within England (not including cornwall). I propose we initially use the figure "498,800+" for England, this will atleast satisfy my urge to just revert peoples edits and look like a tosser.

I think what i have proposed is fair howevre i will not make the edit now, i will wait for your responses. Gazh 10:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind, a lot of the population of Cumbria, particularly the Lake District would be incomers who had retired there, want to escape the rat race or work in the tourist industry. In fact, this is so much of a problem that a Westmorland terrorist group has recently sprung up! --MacRusgail 13:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest then MacRusty? Gazh 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway i think we need a number, as it stands England are in the list below and anyone looking would possibly presume that our population is so small that it fails to merit a place on the 'proper' list, so can we come together and decide on a figure - if everyone can contribute we can get there alot quicker, I'm not looking for an answer, just something we can all agree represents England best to our knowledge:

Cumbria, Northumberland, County Durham, Tyne and Wear.

Durham is arguable i know as it includes parts to the south that i would not consider the 'same' as the northern part (in accent, culture, humour etc). Likewise Newcastle in T+W was an English stronghold (supported the jacobites, royalists) as well as receiving alot of people from the south in their garrison (usually fighting against the Scots and locals based in Sunderland). So with your help i think we can cut up some numbers and do some maths to come together on an agreeable number. Gazh 07:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish I knew. I don't fully agree that these places are that Celtic, but they certainly are Celtic influenced. All of these areas have received ample immigration in recent years. Going back a bit further, urban areas such as the north east English conurbation and Carlisle have also had tonnes of immigration, not just from Scotland and Ireland, but overseas, and it is hard to quantify them as "Celtic" for this reason. A lot of the folk who move to the Lake District, for example, have no intention of "Cumbricising" themselves, and come from the Home Counties etc.

There is also the question of the Welsh Marches. Certain parts of Herefordshire, for example, have obviously Welsh names.--MacRusgail 17:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. Will you help me disect which areas should be included in such a list? I think if we do the maths for each 'agreed' county/area then subtract a sum that is well over the amount of immigration they have received we will be left with a total that would possibly represent lower than the true figure, but safe enough for us to add to the list. Thoughts? Gazh 18:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but this is all a bit quixotic. First of all, it would count as original research. Second, it's practically impossible, after more than a millennium of immigration, to decide how many people in England (or any of the other places) count as Celtic. The difference between the six nations whose populations are given and the eleven whose are not is that the first six are considered Celtic nations by the Celtic League and Celtic Congress, based purely on the existence of a modern Celtic language in these places. I know that even this is somewhat arbitrary, but there we are. If we're going to include the population of England, France, Spain etc (and it's not clear that there's any need) then we either have to give the whole population or find a separate reputable source for each number we give. garik 22:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Then let us begin out original research! garik, let's be honest, the entire populations of Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall etc etc are included on those lists, and i think we would all unanimously agree that not everyone in those areas are culturally 'Celtic' or speak a 'Celtic' language, infact the people who can speak those languages are usually in a minority. So infact the article page does have some unfounded inaccuracies already, i'm not saying let's add more ofcourse, but i think we can come together and decide which areas of England do have Celtic elements, we can do the maths, the original research and add to the article. Gazh 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that we can't claim that the entire populations of Wales, Ireland etc. are fully Celtic. As I say: if we include England's population at all, we should probably give the whole population. Wales, Scotland, Ireland etc. don't have a special status here on the grounds that their populations are more ethnically or culturally Celtic or whatever: they're just traditionally considered to be the Celtic heartlands because they have, or had, Celtic languages spoken in them very recently. That's all. And I'm afraid you seem to miss the point about original research: you can't include it on Wikipedia. garik 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh well, I was unaware of the 'OR' rule. Looks like i have been met with a dead end again, can you think of any alternatives? Gazh 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know. The whole issue of what constitutes a Celt is so problematic. In Classical times "Celtic" apparently developed from being a name applied to one tribe to one applied to a large number of different tribes in continental Europe (but not the British Isles). Then, rather later, it came to be applied to those people who (in whatever era) spoke languages from a particular language family. This would appear to be the only hardcore defining feature of a Celt: the language he or she speaks. It's probably not quite what the Ancient Romans and Greeks meant by it (ironically, none of the Celtic languages spoken today are descended from the languages of the Classical Celts). But that's all we really have: the whole concept of "modern Celts" is, I'm sorry to say, really just romantic fluff. Some people speak Celtic languages: that's about as Celtic as you get. Others might be descended from speakers of Celtic languages, but so what? Plenty of people all over Europe are descended from speakers of Scandinavian languages; does that make them Vikings? The Celtic League and the Celtic Alliance are political groups that want to create cooperation between certain countries and regions that have strong connections with living (or only half-dead) Celtic languages, so that gives them six areas. At least that's something concrete to talk about in the article. To sum up: The Romans and Greeks didn't consider any British people to be Celtic, and it's them we get the word from. So what do we mean by modern Celt? People descended from people who spoke Celtic languages? Then most of the population of western Europe and quite a few Turks are Celts. We just have to accept that there's very little objective reality here. garik 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Garik, the Celtic Congress (if that's what you mean by "Celtic Alliance") is apolitical. That's why the Celtic League broke off it, they felt they wanted to do a political thing. I don't think it even matters if the Ancient and Modern "Celts" are one and the same. The ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians don't have much in common, but everyone knows what you mean if you say "Cairo" is Egyptian.

Plenty of people all over Europe are descended from speakers of Scandinavian languages; does that make them Vikings?

Have you ever heard of the Nordic Council Garik? --MacRusgail 14:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

#sigh# Sorry. It was late and I'd had a couple of glasses of wine when I wrote the above. It was all a bit of a stream of consciousness. And you're quite right: I was thinking of the Celtic Congress (I don't know where "Celtic Alliance" came from); and yes, they are about promoting the languages rather than anything else.

And thanks for reminding me of the Nordic Council, though I'm not sure how relevant it is to my point. And I agree that it doesn't matter if the ancient and modern concepts of Celtic are the same thing; but people confuse the two, which is not helpful.

Anyway, my main point is that establishing who counts as modern Celts is really quite arbitrary. One obvious thing to do would be to count all the places in the world where a reasonable number of people speak, or once spoke, a Celtic language. In which case, we should include the populations of Anatolia, a very large part of Western Europe, the Chubut valley in Patagonia, Nova Scotia and so on. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it is just one of several possibilities, and is a bit too closely tied to ancient, as well as modern, Celts. The alternative, obviously, is to do what the Celtic League and Congress do, and just count those areas with modern Celtic languages – though that clearly doesn't appeal to everyone. A response would be to add those areas where no language has survived, but other aspects of Celtic culture have, but this is also very problematic: for example, do we include Celtic neo-paganism? And what is Celtic culture anyway? Finally, there's the problem of deciding who really counts as Celtic in a particular area: certainly there are people all over Britain with no Celtic-speaking ancestors whatsoever. The answer is to just leave this well alone (as I said, it would almost certainly be OR anyway). Modern Celts are a modern invention, and there's nothing wrong with that, but we shouldn't forget it. garik 17:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think there are some parts of Scotland, esp. Shetland which are more Nordic than parts of Greenland, but Greenland comes under the Nordic Council. The CC & CL solution, while controversial because it leaves out Asturias etc, is probably the neatest. --MacRusgail 18:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd agree with that. At least it's based on the existence of a modern Celtic language, which is something relatively tangible. garik 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)