Відео

Why are there hardly any Welsh words in English?

Thank You. .SEAN DHONNCHAIDH

I recently rewatched an episode of Time Team where they were digging an Anglo-Saxon graveyard in Lincolnshire. In it, Helen Geake said quite authoritatively that the migrations never occurred and that the Anglo-Saxons were just a small ruling elite. Apparently, the rest of the population, swapped languages, changed to Germanic paganism, adopted a Germanic culture wholesale...just to fit in (strange how the Welsh didn't feel like...fitting in). Oh and the migrations couldn't have happened because of the 'difficulty' of crossing the North Sea. My BS radar was going off throughout the programme.

Harland is a tad revisionist... just a tad. The fact that one disagrees with Gildas or finds his invective unpalatable or contrary to one's own ideology does not mean that Gildas was incorrect. "Every age has the Stonehenge it deserves -- or desires." Jacquetta Hawkes "God in the Machine". "Antiquity", Volume 41, Issue 163, p. 174, September 1967.

If you look at pagan Germanic cemeteries in eastern England, as the Gretzinger team did, you will tend to find Germanic incomers. What was not shown in the paper is, are showy pagan cemeteries with lots of grave goods fully representative of the entire contemporary population of lowland Britain? It is a bit like only looking at Roman urban sites and villas and ignoring all the rural settlements of native British form that continued in existence throughout the Roman presence in Britain. A decidedly inaccurate view is produced.

Yes we did😊🇩🇪

The historical idea of conquest other than the Romans is not as it seems, no groups or budding nations could have evolved with out trade and ideas being shared among the populations of Europe and beyond, trading and isolated settlement were here long before the Elitist warrior Clans ever set their greedy eyes on these shore's, finding that wealth had already been created ripe for the taking there would have been little here for them to build a kingdom on. some of the early settlers were of the same Tribal origins of the invaders but paid no allegiance to the warrior chiefs. As traders and farmers they were no threat to the earlier settlers on this Island ,those before the Roman's. We must remember that history is written by those who conquer and in the early Christianisation of Britain by the monks and the elate scholars of the time, often showing the country as if if was backward and uncultured before the conquest heavily biased toward the ruling powers . No the honest trader and farmers had no need of kings and rulers, it is however ironic that without the ambitious kings then perhaps a mass migration would have been just a trickle? as it is the truth lies not with warrior chiefs and kings but with ordinary people making a life and carving out a living but do we trust in writings handed down to us, read only with a pinch of salt.

I don't understand why the Roman occupation of Britain is not assumed to be a great period of reduced migration between northern Europe and Briton. Before the Roman occupation is it supposed the ancient Britons were sealed off from the north Europeans? Is the claim that the British found trading goods east-west across the island of Britain more convenient than trading goods by water? Why is it that every major city in Britain is on a navigable river? Are we all assuming it was simply because it was where the river could be bridged over to facilitate overland transport? Until 5,000 BC Britain and northern Europe were one land mass. The loss of Doggerland must have happened incrementally. During its erosion into the sea (and that erosion continues along the Norfolk coast today) there would have been the opportunity to develop early barges to trade by water with the people living along the new tidal waterways slowly inundating Doggerland. There MUST have been a time the people on either side of these ever widening waterways accepted they were no longer one people, but it seems likely to me that there would have always remained kinship ties for the sake of trade between the British and North Europeans. Under Roman rule it would seem obvious that as Germanic tribes the north Europeans would have been regarded beyond the pale and a threat to the Romans. The loss of kinship and trade and the establishment of the Saxon shore forts would have ushered in a new "isolation" period. The west Britons would have been provided with opportunities and the east Britons would have suffered economic and cultural suppression due to the stifling and regulation of North sea trade for the sake of Roman security. After the Romans pulled the plug the old regime reasserted itself and the west Britons were compelled to either engage with or retreat from the north Europeans. We have zero evidence what languages or kinship ties existed between eastern England and northern Europe pre occupation, and how these might have been suppressed for 450 years by Roman government. After the Norman conquest English disappeared from the written record. It took 300 years for it to reappear. I think there is an argument that East Britons always incorporated Germanic vocabulary and language into the native tongue. I would even postulate the west Britons were interlopers into east Britain because under Roman protection and governance the east Britons no longer profited and the western people's could profit from their loss of contact with their business partners in Europe.

If this is the John Mcgovern I think it is, I went to primary school with you. Nice to see you have come a very long way!

I commend you for the wisdom and discernment shown in this thought provoking presentation. Well done.

I was dreading covering the Fairie Queene for England because it’s so long; this definitely helped - thanks so much 🙏

I found quotes from "The Faerie Queene" in Philip Pullman's book "The Secret Commonwealth" and George Elliot's Book Middlemarch. Thanks for your explanation :)

Can't wait for the second part!🎉❤❤

Visiting scholar? Hope to see you again in China!!

🎉🎉

No... Firstly: cos there was never a group that called themselves 'Anglo-saxons'... There were Saxons, Jutes, Frisans and Angles and the groups that eventually unified 'Angleland' under Athelstan seemed to regard themselves as either Angles or Saxons, though by Aethelstan's time it was mostly Angles, hence the name 'Angleland'. Secondly: The Germanic migrants did not displace the extant population of the time, so there were still Celts around and the Danelaw had introduced a lot of Norse folks too. Third: Wales was only 'unified' with England by the Plantagenet king Edward Longshanks. Though the unification with Scotland kinda happened with James I/VI.. the final unifying act was the Scottish Parliament voting itself out of existence in 1707. Having said that: The migrant populations did establish political dominance in kingdoms such as Mercia, Wessex etc...at the expense of the Romano-celtic authorities that survived the formal end of Roman rule. Edit: Haplogroups also tend to refute the claim that they 'took over Britain'... Since the best evidence I have seen suggests only around 30% of pre 20th century 'english' DNA was derived from these Germanic migrants which btw... Does seem to have initially been elites, others came later... Lets not forget the migration took 3-4 centuries, and the biggest reason the Angles achieved dominance was because, basically the whole tribe arrived. A lot of Saxons stayed home, and the Jutes and Freisians were lese numerous. Though old English is more like Friesian than other languages.

Reference to the British anglo saxons in the war with Mexico and the United States in 1846 in an anti war review: The Anglo-Saxons, your British blood, have been apparently persuaded to think themselves the chosen people, the anointed race of the Lord, commissioned to drive out the heathen, and plant their religion and institutions in every Canaan they could subjugate! The idea of a “destiny," connected with this race, has gone far to justify, if not to sanctify, many an act on either side of the Atlantic; for which both England and the United States, if nations can be personified, ought to hang their heads in shame, and weep scalding tears of repentance! We had already done great discredit to our good name, by our violations of Indian treaties, our slavery, and our repudiation of State debts. But this attack on weak neighbors, to steal away their lands, is capping the climax of wrong and dishonor. See, says the monarchist, the aristocrat, your boasted government of the people can do as wicked and unjust things, as were ever perpetrated by the kings and kaisers of the old world! It is the same game of ambition, only it is played by different hands! It is the ancient spirit in a new form. The reality is the same, sugar it over with fair names as much as you please! War is war, and tyranny is tyranny, and human bondage is human bondage , - whether in the United States, or Rome, or England! Some men have attained the title and have been called great, but they have been great in crime and blood, a Peter, an Alfred, a charlamagne, a Caesar, a Herod, a Bonaparte, a Frederic. They have been willing to sacrifice any amount of lives and blood to be called the greatest. But how blood stained the glory, how much tears to water their garlands of victory, how much human gore to dye their purple robes of royalty? We want no more such great ones, we want the truly great. We want Catos , not Caesar nor syllas at the head of nations. We may deem ourselves to be a species of Israelites amongst the nations, but remember too that Israel did not escape the fiery furnace and punishment for all its transgressions and backsliding! There is a genuine Anglo Saxon destiny, of which we can conceive, that would be truly glorious in itself, and beneficial to mankind. But it is a destiny of liberty, not of license. It is a destiny of peace, not of war. It is a destiny of justice and noble ideas, not of invasions and violent annexations. It is a destiny whose emblems and implements are not the bomb and the bowie-knife, but the printing-press and the Bible. It is a destiny of raising up the fallen races, and administering wise and equal laws, wherever our dominion extends, not of trampling under the hoofs of the war-horse the prostrate red man, black man, or dark browed Mexican. If the Anglo Saxons have any other destiny than that, let them beware before they run upon the thick bosses of those bucklers of the Almighty, which have already drank up the blood of the proudest victors! -war with Mexico reviewed, Abiel Abbott Livermore, American Peace Society 1850

So who do I believe, someone who was writing at the same time that the anglo saxons were migrating into Britain or some bunch of left wing historians saying stuff that just so happens to fit in with contemporary societies politically correct ideas about immigration. oh and who are writing about 1500 years! after the event... At least we've moved on the 19th century view that we're all Germans (King George was German)....

Unfortunately yes.

At least their big mouths did. British royal family has been Viking descendants for a thousand years.

I have seen some well argued suggestions that Germanic tribes came to Britain in pre-Roman times, possibly about 300BC, who shared names with continental tribes, such as the Belgae.

England ended after 1066 and it's landowners all replaced. It survived as a name only.

it would be interesting to see if the Y Chomosomes in period where the domestic British males or if most of the found period bodies where Y chomosomes from the mainland

What the ‘no conquest’ lot can never explain is why there was such a huge exodus of Britons from Britain to Brittany in the 5th and 6th centuries? We’re talking big numbers here - enough to completely change the toponymy of the Armorican peninsula and it displaced the Latin language there. All evidence points towards a massive fleeing out of Britain, away from the Anglo Saxon invasion.

Oh please, post-structuralist literary criticism? Of a 6thC historian who was considerably closer to the action than you? And who's outlook was reinforced by events in the A-S Chronicle? And all this in a western Germanic tongue? You're a very strange and weird person

They slaughterred them.. and called them welsh.. meaning foreigner...the nerve

Those immigrants would have been refugees from the Hunnic invasion of the continent. Also, what most people don't know, West Jutish dialects of Danish merged the three Proto-Germanic genders into one, like English.

nice, loved it. What books do you recommend for a sort of commentary on the book?

I'm revisiting these a lot. I really appreciate the combination of summary and interpretation!

No, they only made a joke🤣

Mass MIGRATION does not necessarily mean mass INVASION.

Very interesting. Just one thing: a group of people left Africa and became the ancestors of the 92% of us who today who are not African. One lot of their descendants were the blue-eyed black-skinned people who moved into this empty island just before the Mesolithic and then almost certainly became our Mesolithic forebears. They were conquered by, and genetically subsumed by, slightly lighter-skinned people during the Neolithic. These people will very distantly have been related to them as they were also descended from those people who'd left Africa. Then even lighter-skinned people conquered this island and subsumed them - the Copper- and then Bronze-Age people. They will very distantly have been related to them as they were also descended from those people who'd left Africa. Then the equally light-skinned Celts arrived and intermarried with them. They will very distantly have been related to them as they were also descended from those people who'd left Africa. Then came the Romans... then the Anglo-Saxons... then the Vikings... then the Normans. They were all descended from those people who'd left Africa - and specifically the ones who'd travelled slowly through Europe. I'm just wondering... could it be that that's why they all appear to be related? I don't really understand the sciencey stuff so I may be way off but I was just wondering.

@mcgovernjon TRUE HISTORY? Dare you apply it to modern history? How about to the truth of the 'Windrush Generation' & the rubbish about the NHS & UK being saved by it etc.? This is history, yet because overlapping with politics it seems academic principles are thrown out of the window. Moral cowardice or mere pragmatism, or both?

Agreed. But the Jutes who were plundering raiders were not with the Anglo-Freisian and Saxons. They were enemies. The Jutes plundered the Freisian chieftain Fin's barn/warehouse in Freisia. When Fin returned finding them eating all his schtick, Fin killed the head man of the Jutes but in turn Fin was killed by Jutes Henga and Horsa who returned to Britain. So the Angle-Freisians gathered an army which included their friends the Saxons and went in pursuit of the Jutes. They found them in 'Hampshire' and gave battle. The Freisian and Saxons won. Leaving them with a land they could now inhabit. The Freisians first settled in Dorset(Thor/Dorstadt) named after a town in Freisia and Somerset so named after an attribute of their god Ing or Yngvi Freya. They would subsequently move into the West Midlands or Mercia. England of course is a derivative of ING; not from Angle which is a description of the shape of Freisia.

They did culturally.

Then over in 1066.

The modern scientific world is so full of it's own self importance and egos. Why do academia today think our ancestors where ignorant and illiterate.Our forefathers were no different to us and related things as they saw them. Modern ideas of down playing the past and how it was represented to us in historical manuscripts is arrogant. Modern man has no idea about truth as it is always watered down or hidden in favour of the theory of the day. The Angelcynn made this country great and would still be great if not for the treachery during the Battle of Senlac Hill.Thank's to the Norman conquest our true patron saint was replaced as was our national flag.St Edmund 20th November and the White Dragon on the red background.

My problem with this is does anyone take into account the disappearance of Doggerland? The British Isles have only existed as isles for a geologically short time. Could the haplogroups be affected by the fact you could walk from Denmark to England just over 10,000 years ago?

All the evidence points to a invasion and displacement of most of the Britains,, but a few modern historians have a theory with no evidence and it's already being taught in schools,ffs

Very interesting! Thank you.

From what I understand Smeaton (who was the only man who pled guilty) was the only man low enough on the totem pole to be able to torture. When and where these hook ups happened either Ann or the man in question were not in the same place at the time together. Lastly the swordsman would not have been able to get to Ann when he did unless he was commissioned ahead of the trials.

She was NOT GUILTY.

The 'science' has no test-retest reliability. Unlike exact science, upon which you can physically build your house. Sigh

"Poststructuralist literary criticism" is a posh euphemism for "you cant automatically trust what a posh twit (potential subconscious or conscious liar) writes, can you?" Even the criticiser is downplaying his critique. Its obvious Dont trust the posh, dig stuff up instead, and dont auto-interpret the findings in reference to posh writings.

Thank you for this introductive video! I've searched for "La Regina delle fate" by Spenser but no Italian videos were shown there on UA-cam.

Very interesting video. I think there are two main lines of thought that dispute the Anglo-Saxon invasion. One would be a British, nationalistic approach. You use the word "elite" in the video but I have heard scholars describe the Anglo-Saxons as "an impoverished minority that made little impact on our DNA." Then there are those who, as you mention, refuse to consider themselves some sort of "ethnically pure people". Ideologically I sympathise with the latter, not the former, but I think both theories are baseless. The key is in the language. Come on, the country's called England. The other languages spoken on the island are so different. Can they prove that Welsh didn't mean "slave" and/or "foreigner" in old German? Is "Das ist meine Tochter" very far from "This is my daughter"? It's actually my study of the English language that's drawn me to this topic. Greetings from Madrid.

There was only one woman who accused Anne and Goerge Boleyn of adultery. That is hardly compelling evidence. She was a maid of Anne's I think. At his trial George Boleyn said "Am I to be found guilty of these monstrous accusations on the word of one woman?" (No those weren't his exact words. I can't remember his exact statement word for word but what I said is basically what he said). Anne and Goerge Boleyn were both very religious and pious. Anne knew her bible well. Incest would indeed have been a monstrous act to Anne and her brother George so I do not think it is possible that she committed adultery with him. She wanted to reform England's religion and help the poor. Why risk that by committing Incest or indeed adultery? As for Mark Smeaton he was not a gentleman and thus could be tortured so he may have given a false confession to avoid torture and a terrible death so his 'confession 'is suspect to say the least. He was not protected by being a nobleman or by his rank and birth. He had no status to grant him some immunity from torture. So anything he said is in my view unreliable. Yes it is possible Anne may have committed adultery but I do not think it's very likely. She also would really have never been alone to have had an opportunity to commit adultery. She was a very intelligent woman so I doubt she'd have been stupid enough to commit adultery.

I'm already in love with your depth of knowledge and understanding. Thank you teacher for making everything so easy for us .😊☺️

Interesting. I thought the "Anglo-Saxon" cultural group had their ethnogenesis in Britain after the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and others had already spent considerable time mixing with the preexisting Britons, Romano-Britons, etc, in the British Isles before later establishing the Kingdom of England hundreds of years later.

"poststructuralist literary theory" = 100% nonsense