England, is it really English?

Loads of those people on the right wouldn't look out of place in Bavaria desu.

Yes. The idea that people move to a place and retain all of their original properties is idiotic.

Anglo-Saxons came from Northern Germany and Danemark not from Bavaria

You forgot one user.

Bavarian just have darker hair than northern Germans, they're not Iberian looking shitskins like Anglos.

T. Hans von Niederbayern

Reminder that the average "Aryan" German is blonde like Hitler, tall like Goebbels and slim like Göring

>welsh
>german
Why do braindead faggots do this?

>England
>British flag
Hello, American!

To answer your question, we are largely unchanged as a result of invasions. Let's have a look.
>Celts
Celts were a cultural rather than ethnic group. Unless you're referring to the invasion of Scotland by the Celtic Irish Scotti tribe. In this case the western highlands of Scotland became genetically Gaelic but the Picts remained in the east. Pictish culture was wiped out though and they were Gaelicised.
>Romans
Virtually no genetic change since the Romans only ruled us, there was no mass influx of settlers. Some cultural change since we adopted Christianity and the Romano-British (this is a cultural not ethnic term) spoke Latin but also Brythonic.
>Angles, Saxons and Jutes
The only invasions that left any real lasting genetic footprint. There was a very large influx of settlers here. But the natives weren't genocided, rather the two mixed. Anglo-Saxons were still outnumbered by Britons so the genes never dominated. There's probably only between 10-30% Anglo-Saxon genes in the modern Englishman (and lowland Scotsman), and it's higher in eastern areas like Essex. Anglo-Saxon culture however completely overran native culture except in Wales, Cumbria and Cornwall (and over time the latter two and to an extent Wales have been assimilated).
>Vikings
Left some genetic footprint in places like Yorkshire but as not as much as is thought. Most of the Danelaw was relatively untouched genetically and a lot of the Danish settlers were massacred in the early 1000s. Viking cultural influence wasn't that huge, but they did influence our language (for example 'their' comes from them I believe) and to this day parts of the NE like the wewuz as vikings.

[cont.]

>Normans
Normans, NOT French. Virtually no genetic footprint outside of the aristocracy. Culturally they had a big impact but it was more a mingling with Anglo-Saxon culture than dominating it. In many ways Anglo-Saxon remained dominant actually, but the Normans are responsible for the evolution of our language and government primarily and even then there's still some Anglo-Saxon influence.
>Dutch
We weren't invaded by the Dutch, we simply invited a Dutch King to take the throne after we deposed James II. There was essentially no change culturally (let alone genetically) except that it solidified our status as a Protestant rather than Catholic nation.

>Hello, American!
Hey, we know England. It's probably some French cunt.

See I'm not big on mocking people for their appearance, it doesn't matter to me, but it's funny how everyone thinks Germans look like Dolph Lundgren just because they said so during the war.

>not French
>referred to themselves as French in their charter for London
>referred to themselves as French in the Bayeux Tapestry
>referred to as French by the English in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

They didn't make the Anglo Saxon Chronicle.
See picture. The Anglo-Saxons had a large impact on the south and east if England

>by the English

This is only one of many haplogroups. They didn't have an impact as big as this image would lead one to believe.

Bavarians have also TÜRAN skull shape (brachycephalic), which is quite sad, but true

They were perhaps legally "French" since they nominally owed allegiance to the French King but in reality they weren't French and you know it

Most studies show Anglo-Saxon genetics making up no more than 30% at the most. It's hard to get an accurate answer but it's mostly people wanting to LARP as Germanics when they're not. The natives were not genocided and they outnumbered the Anglo-Saxons so Germanic genes cannot be dominant except in small isolated pockets where Anglo-Saxon settlement was heaviest.

There is no such thing as a "pure" culture or race. That said, the modern English have many of the tropes and memes of the dark ages English, yes there has been considerable admixture and influence from other sources but such central axes as the Common Law and the English language have endured, giving England roots fifteen hundred years deep, more than most European countries

And yet they repeatedly referred to themselves as French. Why?

wow so i guess the byzantines were roman after all not greek

I just said so you retard

>posts the union jack
>proceeds to talk about the english
If I had a pound for every time someone confused the two, I would be able to buy more than a million items in poundland

Gildas suggests otherwise. Also when it's 30% it's no longer LARPing as your ancestors literally were Germanic and lived in England

>WE WUZ R1B R1A AND I1 and I2

Kys, g*rm(an)oid

You're a bunch of language-shiffting pre-IEs(I1 and I2) who was subjugated by Celts(Beakers) and Balto-Slavs (Corded Ware)

I never suggested that it was peaceful, you'd be a fool to think that. But the natives were not genocided en masse.
>when it's 30% it's no longer LARPing
That's the absolute highest though, most people are lower. It is still LARPing btw since you're 70% not Germanic
>image implies that the language is evidence in favour of native genocide
kek, guess the Scots are all Gaels then

but that literally is the minority, why not make it the 70% yiu are

we wuz saxonz

The native Britons are Celtic. You will find their descendants still in their purest form in Wales, Cumbria, Cornwall, Scotland and Ireland.

The Jutes, Angles and Saxons were the first invaders to have any significant genetic impact on the landscape and eradicated the many Celtic kingdoms of what is now called England (Angle-land), including the Gododdin, Durnovarii, etc.
Romans left little in the way of genetics here, but interbred with the locals - I am sure some people in modern England probably have such heritage.

I know that from my genetic testing and the origin of my surname, that my family are from the New Forest in Hampshire, which nearly 1500 years ago would have been a petty kingdom called Ytene, which was ethnically belonging to the Jutes.

Vikings only left their genetic footprint in the North of England in coastal regions, and upon the Isle of Man, the Orkneys and the Hebrides; as well as northern Scotland and the east and north coast of Ireland.

The Normans (who are not french, well, not completely) left also a fairly small amount of genetic material here - however most successful families in this country descend from those ancestors, even a thousand years after the invasion.

The Dutch and French Huguenots have descendants in this country - I know that I am descended from Dutch cloth merchants who made it to Gloucestershire in the early 1500s. But their impact is severely limited generally to the urban hub of London.

The majority of heritage for most British people is going to be a blend of celtic, western european (frankish) and northern european (germanic/nordic).

I hope this helps. Here is my genetic profile for comparison. I post in /pol/, so that accounts for the file name.

I1 reporting in!

>frankish heritage
u wot

A reference to what would be french/german diaspora that made it into the genetic admixture from Normandy and other settlers from later. Most people will have some of it in there, as opposed to large quantities of iberian or slavic.

>30%
Anglo-Saxon lineage peaks at 19% in East Anglia. England as a whole is 14% Anglo-Saxon.

>your ancestors
Your true ancestors are the remaining 86%.

Normans had virtually no genetic influence outside of the aristocracy though. Huguenots weren't very numerous either

youtube.com/watch?v=eof7gacss90

Ok for one 30% is factually correct as an average also 30% is quite alot. It literally means they are my ancestors, they wouldn't be if it were 0%. Also the culture of England and language is predominantly Anglo-Saxon and you don't cause such a huge cultural shift by being a small minority

the same fucking French cretin posting the same info graphs in every thread related to Britain. Serious mental health issues you've required there.

>England and language is predominantly Anglo-Saxon
Language ≠ Ethnicity

>and you don't cause such a huge cultural shift by being a small minority
Yes you can e.g. Spanish and Indians. Romans and Celts, Arabs and Levantines, Arabs and Berbers, Anglo-Saxons and Britons,

But they were in control in England. Their fealty to the French king had no bearing.
If they wrote 'Norman' he wasn't going to sail over and make the rewrite it. Yet they referred to themselves as French.

Also saying that it's 30% Anglo-Saxon and the other 70% is homogeneous is wrong.

>England, is it really English?
English is Germanic, Germane

those dialects are fucked

>kek, guess the Scots are all Gaels then
The difference is that huge parts of Scotland were never Gaelic-speaking, especially in the Lowlands. We also know that Gaelic existed because people still speak it.
And really where is the evidence for this pre-English British language? It's always just assumed it was spoken everywhere in England, in huge British towns and settlements, well where is the evidence for it? Did the Britons change their language twice in ~1,000 years without even the slightest trace of the British one ever remaining?

English people aren't tho

Compare this to Denmark and it's not that different. Stop assuming that you're either Anglo-Saxon or native iron briton

>Is there a reason Frogs are choosing to shit up Veeky Forums of all places?

And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs: And the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy kneadingtroughs: And the frogs shall come up both on thee, and upon thy people, and upon all thy servants. And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch forth thine hand with thy rod over the streams, over the rivers, and over the ponds, and cause frogs to come up upon the land of Egypt. And Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up, and covered the land of Egypt. And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt. Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and said, Intreat the LORD, that he may take away the frogs from me, and from my people; and I will let the people go, that they may do sacrifice unto the LORD. And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Glory over me: when shall I intreat for thee, and for thy servants, and for thy people, to destroy the frogs from thee and thy houses, that they may remain in the river only? And the frogs shall depart from thee, and from thy houses, and from thy servants, and from thy people; they shall remain in the river only. And Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh: and Moses cried unto the LORD because of the frogs which he had brought against Pharaoh. And the LORD did according to the word of Moses; and the frogs died out of the houses, out of the villages, and out of the fields. And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

There is the reason Frogs choose to shit up Veeky Forums

Lucifer, the Devil, and Satan

Elizabeth R. is German
Every King George too
English Germanic fact

Germane

Britain is the original mutt of Europe. First inhabited by stone age cultures, then celts, then Romans, then Anglo-Saxons, then Vikings (briefly), then Anglos again, then Norman-French. And in the modern period you had a huge influx of people from all over the British Empire and other parts of Europe in smaller numbers (you can go ask /pol about that if you want).

>implying it’s not southern France
WEW LAD

>mass influx of those people
Where are you getting this lie from?

Genetically counties are still distinctly identifiable with how they were over the ages. There weren't ever huge influxes, I think the largest one was the Normans coming in and they didn't come in particularly overwhelming numbers, they just slotted themselves into ruling positions. Prior to that the biggest change was the initial Anglo-Saxon displacement of the natives.

There was some genetic study posted ages ago where they found there was very little bleed-over from areas like the north to the south and the two areas were identifiable genetically with how they were ages ago, let alone from different countries.

>southern France
Esan nire aurpegian eta ez Interneten puta.

So you're all A bunch of Dirty
Shithole filthy Krauts, figures

G-D

They were culturally pretty French, that's likely why. 'French' was a very broad term back then and even then it doesn't make it true ethnically.

>The difference is that huge parts of Scotland were never Gaelic-speaking
Disregard the lowlands, those were English speaking. With the exception of the westernmost highlands (Dal Raita), ethnically the Scots were Picts but they were Gaelicised after the invasion of the Gaels.
>And really where is the evidence for this pre-English British language?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yan_Tan_Tethera
Welsh is also evidence too
>Did the Britons change their language twice in ~1,000 years without even the slightest trace of the British one ever remaining?
It's a mystery, but it certainly happened.

There is no reason to think that Yan Tan Tethera isn't just corrupted Welsh or a result of Welsh dominion over the west. How is this not the most common sense, rational explanation?

>just corrupted Welsh
Welsh is literally a descendent of the pre-English language. Are you seriously suggesting that no language was spoken in Britain before English?
>Welsh dominion over the west
That wouldn't explain why they speak it furhter east, and Welsh never 'dominated', they got dominated by the English. Cumbric bears resemblance to Welsh though but as I said that's because they're descended from Brythonic.

No, England is Serbian

>ns and settlements, well where is the evidence for it? Did the Britons change their language twice in ~1,000 years without even the slightest trace of the British one ever remaining?
>>>
> Anonymous 01/29/18(Mon)18:57:50 No.4047286▶
>File: English are Britons.png (650 KB, 1890x1260)
>
>English people aren't tho
This map comes not even close to the dutch accents

What I mean is that there's no reason to imagine that the Welsh polities had to be this separate, self-contained thing as opposite to the Britons. Remember that Welsh itself is an exonym, it's a Germanic word that was literally used in the sense of "stranger" or "non-English", or what we would call the Britons, it isn't the name the Welsh give to themselves. And the Welsh already have a name for what they called the parts of ancient England under Welsh influence, it's Hen Ogledd, right up to the very areas you find Yan Tan Tethera in the north-west. So you could've had these petty "Welsh" (British) kingdoms that were once spread all through the west south of Hadrian's wall but were gradually reduced to the Gwynedd and Powys rump states with the arrival and flowering of the Anglo-Saxons.
So it's not that I am saying what language the Britons *did* speak, only that an Insular Celtic one that isn't Welsh and has left absolutely no trace is incredulous to me. I don't understand why people hold to it despite a total dearth of evidence. If it were true then you would find something, but there's nothing. To me that speaks to a faulty hypothesis.

They spoke a few dialects of proto-Welsh, most of which died off, with the only survivors evolving into Welsh, Cornish, and Cumbrian, which also recently died.
It was also related to proto-Breton.

Normans were vikings who swanked it in France only a short-while before occupying England.

>The Romans left little to no genetic make up of the average englishman
well actual latins didn't leave much anywhere outside of italy and thin strips of southern france and spain
roman-era migrants from the rest of the empire left many obvious markers, though the bulk of settlers, merchants and soldiers were of course from what is now france and germany, britons closest ethnic cousins in europe, and to a lesser extent iberia which has more ancient ties

>same goes for the Norse and the Normans
how can anyone possible know that? they were of mixed gallo-roman and scandinavian stock, meaning [for the reasons mentioned above] they were essentially introducing 'more of the same'

You're using 'Welsh' in a broader way than modern Brits like me use it, hence the confusion.

What I'm saying is, there was a Brythonic language that likely consisted of many regional dialects that existed before the Anglo-Saxons. This language was wiped out as the Anglo-Saxons took over most of England, and only a few dialects in what is now Wales, Cumbria and Cornwall survived down the centuries, and even now only Welsh is still alive (and changed).

>an Insular Celtic one that isn't Welsh and has left absolutely no trace is incredulous to me
It's happened before. Sometimes there just isn't a lot of hard evidence. We have some small pieces to work with though and they suggest the above. Calling the Brythonic language 'Welsh' is a misnomer though really and causes confusion.

many of them have non-british parents and grandparents, never mind non-english

Jolly good. Pip pip. Cheerio.

They just, unfortunately, didn't write much down. Those damn druids gave them bad traditions.