The Telegraph War on Inheritance Tax continues apace. A theory: they are trying to push rishi towards abolishing it as a desperate last-ditch election winner either now (and dare Lab to reinstate it) or as the first thing I will do when you reelect me.
Not an obviously bad idea given the unreasonable effectiveness of Osborne's pledge in seeing off GB's snap election.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
Actually yes, much more so than the Telegraph. Look at the top reply: detailed and sourced to a degree that shames anything the Telegraph has to say.
So I'll say it: Reddit is better that the Telegraph for science reporting.
No, the Telegraph had a whole final paragraph of leading historians quoted endorsing continued use of the term Anglo Saxon, including a top historian from Chester University and a letter from 20 academic historians both of which I quoted below.
Which you ignored as it doesn't confirm with your Marxist view of history which ignores all historical fact to suit its agenda.
"Marxist view of history"
I remember reading Das Kapital and marvelling at how Marx devoted three chapters to the question of Anglo-Saxon ethnogenesis.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
IANAE (of course) but according to Wiki:
"Anglo-Saxon is a term that was rarely used by Anglo-Saxons themselves. It is likely they identified as ængli, Seaxe or, more probably, a local or tribal name such as Mierce, Cantie, Gewisse, Westseaxe, or Norþanhymbre. After the Viking Age, an Anglo-Scandinavian identity developed in the Danelaw."
Also, I can strongly recommend Marc Morris' great book The Anglo-Saxons.
I did like the suggestion to rename the field Insular Aryan Studies.
It seems to me that Anglo-Saxons were a thing as much as Celts or Normans - you could make a case that all three are quite vague groupings. But then, every ethnic grouping turns out to be quite vague and I’ll defined if you look at it.
Also, I can strongly recommend Marc Morris' great book The Anglo-Saxons.
As that link makes clear this is just leftwing American cultural Marxists with zero understanding of English history engaging in wokeism. To deny Anglo Saxons were a distinct group from northern Germany and Denmark who came to England in about the 8th century as a distinct group from the Romano British and Celts is not only historical ignorance on an epic scale but deliberate lies to suit a Marxist agenda
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
IANAE (of course) but according to Wiki:
"Anglo-Saxon is a term that was rarely used by Anglo-Saxons themselves. It is likely they identified as ængli, Seaxe or, more probably, a local or tribal name such as Mierce, Cantie, Gewisse, Westseaxe, or Norþanhymbre. After the Viking Age, an Anglo-Scandinavian identity developed in the Danelaw."
I suspect HYUFD will explain how Wikipedia is a tool of cultural Marxists.
While I naturally welcome this as balance for the £5m recently given to the Tories by another donor, I do think the party spending arms race is a thoroughly bad thing. It should be possible to have a lively debate with all parties being heard without going in the direction of the US, where you can't run for anything without lining up an array of donors with bulging wallets. At best they want to help parties who will favour their particular view, which biases politics towards wealthy individuals. At worst they hope for financial benefits (I am not suggesting that's the case here.
I don't think you can stop parties fund-raising. But strict limits throughout the electoral cycle on what parties can spend money on combined would contain the damage. As usual I hark back to the Danish model - all parties who clear a hurdle of 20K signatures to show they're not joke parties get an hour on TV (smallest parties first) to present their views and have them questioned by a panel of journalists. Combine that with a ban on paid media advertising (which we already have for TV and radio, unlike the US) and parties will have much less need for megabucks to win. Healthier politics, and the donors can give their money to charities if they want to improve the world.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
As an aside, I read a little of the Reddit thingummyjg (before pausing for some work...) and it's worth noting that even if people didn't often call themselves Anglo-Saxon, the very fact Alfred and Aethelstan used the term indicates it would have been readily understood.
I can get behind it behind a vague term. As Mr. Malmesbury has said, the Celts also fall handily into that category. The reason Anglo-Saxon has become an objectionable term to some seems entirely rooted in American 'culture' today, and a desire to impose this perspective on the British past.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
Actually yes, much more so than the Telegraph. Look at the top reply: detailed and sourced to a degree that shames anything the Telegraph has to say.
So I'll say it: Reddit is better that the Telegraph for science reporting.
No, the Telegraph had a whole final paragraph of leading historians quoted endorsing continued use of the term Anglo Saxon, including a top historian from Chester University and a letter from 20 academic historians both of which I quoted below.
Which you ignored as it doesn't confirm with your Marxist view of history which ignores all historical fact to suit its agenda.
"Marxist view of history"
Everyone who is not a right-wing Tory is a Marxist, dontcha know.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
Actually yes, much more so than the Telegraph. Look at the top reply: detailed and sourced to a degree that shames anything the Telegraph has to say.
So I'll say it: Reddit is better that the Telegraph for science reporting.
No, the Telegraph had a whole final paragraph of leading historians quoted endorsing continued use of the term Anglo Saxon, including a top historian from Chester University and a letter from 20 academic historians both of which I quoted below.
Which you ignored as it doesn't confirm with your Marxist view of history which ignores all historical fact to suit its agenda.
"Marxist view of history"
Everyone who is not a right-wing Tory is a Marxist, dontcha know.
If people want to complain about supposed imports from American culture being inappropriately applied, calling everyone you don’t like a “cultural Marxist” would appear to be the #1 offender.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
IANAE (of course) but according to Wiki:
"Anglo-Saxon is a term that was rarely used by Anglo-Saxons themselves. It is likely they identified as ængli, Seaxe or, more probably, a local or tribal name such as Mierce, Cantie, Gewisse, Westseaxe, or Norþanhymbre. After the Viking Age, an Anglo-Scandinavian identity developed in the Danelaw."
See also the Wars of the Roses - would have been meaningless at the time, and only much later was it applied to the period.
While I naturally welcome this as balance for the £5m recently given to the Tories by another donor, I do think the party spending arms race is a thoroughly bad thing. It should be possible to have a lively debate with all parties being heard without going in the direction of the US, where you can't run for anything without lining up an array of donors with bulging wallets. At best they want to help parties who will favour their particular view, which biases politics towards wealthy individuals. At worst they hope for financial benefits (I am not suggesting that's the case here.
I don't think you can stop parties fund-raising. But strict limits throughout the electoral cycle on what parties can spend money on combined would contain the damage. As usual I hark back to the Danish model - all parties who clear a hurdle of 20K signatures to show they're not joke parties get an hour on TV (smallest parties first) to present their views and have them questioned by a panel of journalists. Combine that with a ban on paid media advertising (which we already have for TV and radio, unlike the US) and parties will have much less need for megabucks to win. Healthier politics, and the donors can give their money to charities if they want to improve the world.
Wouldn't stop the current government who (a) would get the 20K signatures and (b) ARE a joke party...
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
IANAE (of course) but according to Wiki:
"Anglo-Saxon is a term that was rarely used by Anglo-Saxons themselves. It is likely they identified as ængli, Seaxe or, more probably, a local or tribal name such as Mierce, Cantie, Gewisse, Westseaxe, or Norþanhymbre. After the Viking Age, an Anglo-Scandinavian identity developed in the Danelaw."
The easy and obvious discriminator is, what language people spoke. Hybrid names like "Anglo Saxon" are a modern thing anyway, I can't think of any paralleles in Latin or Old English.
Also, I can strongly recommend Marc Morris' great book The Anglo-Saxons.
I did like the suggestion to rename the field Insular Aryan Studies.
It seems to me that Anglo-Saxons were a thing as much as Celts or Normans - you could make a case that all three are quite vague groupings. But then, every ethnic grouping turns out to be quite vague and I’ll defined if you look at it.
‘Celts’ in particular, especially because of how bound up the term is with political identity today. I recall in my archaeology student days some academics being accused of ‘genocide’ because they posited that (IIRC) Celtic was fundamentally a linguistic term rather than a unified ethno-culture.
Also, I can strongly recommend Marc Morris' great book The Anglo-Saxons.
I did like the suggestion to rename the field Insular Aryan Studies.
It seems to me that Anglo-Saxons were a thing as much as Celts or Normans - you could make a case that all three are quite vague groupings. But then, every ethnic grouping turns out to be quite vague and I’ll defined if you look at it.
Whatever name you choose to give them - and Anglo Saxon is as good as any - there was a very distinct language and culture. The Norman conquest put paid to it over the course of two or three centuries.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
It's complete nonsense as applied to the modern world.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
It's complete nonsense as applied to the modern world.
We are talking historians studying the 8th century
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Yes, but he takes 1066 and all that as historical record.
That’s a really interesting article on Reddit. 19th century nationalists did project current beliefs back into the past (eg the notion of pure, manly Germans locked in centuries of struggle against degenerate Latins).
Of course, plenty of modern historians do something similar, projecting modern concerns about race, gender, sexuality, and class conflict into past societies in ways that are anachronistic.
I don’t think one could draw much of a distinction between Danes and Anglo-Saxons, in the 8th and 9th centuries, save at the religious level, which was all-important, back then. Back in the 6th or 7th centuries, I think tribal identity would have been most important.
But, this is no more than informed speculation.
I do think Anglo-Saxon remains a useful shorthand, even if ethnicity was viewed very differently back then to the way we view it.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
The Anglo Saxon cultural identity disappeared sometime around the fourteenth century along with the language.
HYUFD's misdirection has been successful in shifting this from a claim about ethnicity -- which is uncontroversially true -- to one about the existence of a cultural group.
If someone claims there is no meaningful way you can talk about a distinct Anglo-Saxon ethnicity, they are right. But the deliberate warping of that to "they're saying the Anglo-Saxons didn't exist!!!ONE!!" to provoke the stupider Telegraph readership is quite different.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
That’s a really interesting article on Reddit. 19th century nationalists did project current beliefs back into the past (eg the notion of pure, manly Germans locked in centuries of struggle against degenerate Latins).
Of course, plenty of modern historians do something similar, projecting modern concerns about race, gender, sexuality, and class conflict into past societies in ways that are anachronistic.
I don’t think one could draw much of a distinction between Danes and Anglo-Saxons, in the 8th and 9th centuries, save at the religious level, which was all-important, back then. Back in the 6th or 7th centuries, I think tribal identity would have been most important.
But, this is no more than informed speculation.
I do think Anglo-Saxon remains a useful shorthand, even if ethnicity was viewed very differently back then to the way we view it.
That’s a really interesting article on Reddit. 19th century nationalists did project current beliefs back into the past (eg the notion of pure, manly Germans locked in centuries of struggle against degenerate Latins).
Of course, plenty of modern historians do something similar, projecting modern concerns about race, gender, sexuality, and class conflict into past societies in ways that are anachronistic.
I don’t think one could draw much of a distinction between Danes and Anglo-Saxons, in the 8th and 9th centuries, save at the religious level, which was all-important, back then. Back in the 6th or 7th centuries, I think tribal identity would have been most important.
But, this is no more than informed speculation.
I do think Anglo-Saxon remains a useful shorthand, even if ethnicity was viewed very differently back then to the way we view it.
The evolution of nationalism features in this, with transference of nationalism to larger groups.
Certainly, most of the cultural groupings wouldn’t have seen themselves as primarily defined by their group - did Normans refer to themselves as Normans very much (or at all)?
That’s a really interesting article on Reddit. 19th century nationalists did project current beliefs back into the past (eg the notion of pure, manly Germans locked in centuries of struggle against degenerate Latins).
Of course, plenty of modern historians do something similar, projecting modern concerns about race, gender, sexuality, and class conflict into past societies in ways that are anachronistic.
I don’t think one could draw much of a distinction between Danes and Anglo-Saxons, in the 8th and 9th centuries, save at the religious level, which was all-important, back then. Back in the 6th or 7th centuries, I think tribal identity would have been most important.
But, this is no more than informed speculation.
I do think Anglo-Saxon remains a useful shorthand, even if ethnicity was viewed very differently back then to the way we view it.
Useful for what is a salient question.
Useful to De Gaulle as shorthand for perfidious Albion and the Yanks, anyway.
That’s a really interesting article on Reddit. 19th century nationalists did project current beliefs back into the past (eg the notion of pure, manly Germans locked in centuries of struggle against degenerate Latins).
Of course, plenty of modern historians do something similar, projecting modern concerns about race, gender, sexuality, and class conflict into past societies in ways that are anachronistic.
I don’t think one could draw much of a distinction between Danes and Anglo-Saxons, in the 8th and 9th centuries, save at the religious level, which was all-important, back then. Back in the 6th or 7th centuries, I think tribal identity would have been most important.
But, this is no more than informed speculation.
I do think Anglo-Saxon remains a useful shorthand, even if ethnicity was viewed very differently back then to the way we view it.
Useful for what is a salient question.
Perhaps for considering a moderately cohesive cultural grouping ?
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
It's complete nonsense as applied to the modern world.
We are talking historians studying the 8th century
If I recall correctly you were originally talking about an Anglo Saxon identity in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
The Telegraph War on Inheritance Tax continues apace. A theory: they are trying to push rishi towards abolishing it as a desperate last-ditch election winner either now (and dare Lab to reinstate it) or as the first thing I will do when you reelect me.
Not an obviously bad idea given the unreasonable effectiveness of Osborne's pledge in seeing off GB's snap election.
The Conservative management of the economy is impressive! Not only can they afford to banish inheritance tax forever, but also reduce income tax by a whopping 2% without cutting key public spending, like PPE contracts for friends and relatives and Boris Johnson's escalating legal fees.
That’s a really interesting article on Reddit. 19th century nationalists did project current beliefs back into the past (eg the notion of pure, manly Germans locked in centuries of struggle against degenerate Latins).
Of course, plenty of modern historians do something similar, projecting modern concerns about race, gender, sexuality, and class conflict into past societies in ways that are anachronistic.
I don’t think one could draw much of a distinction between Danes and Anglo-Saxons, in the 8th and 9th centuries, save at the religious level, which was all-important, back then. Back in the 6th or 7th centuries, I think tribal identity would have been most important.
But, this is no more than informed speculation.
I do think Anglo-Saxon remains a useful shorthand, even if ethnicity was viewed very differently back then to the way we view it.
Useful for what is a salient question.
Perhaps for considering a moderately cohesive cultural grouping ?
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for our moderately cohesive cultural grouping
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
True dat. This is what population genetics overwhelmingly shows. People stay put.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
But NOT primarily pure Celts (with a few Romano British) as they were before. Instead the remaining Celtic nations were now Wales and Ireland and Brittany in particular and to a lesser extent Scotland rather than England which emerged in the 10th century out of the 8th century Anglo Saxon Kingdoms with some Normans added on in the 11th century
It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.
Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.
Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.
Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
Surely decimation involves the Tories removing 10% of their MPs themselves, as a form of punishment (such as Andrew Bridgen) rather than as a result of opposition action?
Decimation sounds too metric a punishment. What is it in proper, English, imperial measures?
Imperial measures are of the Roman Empire, not the British one. So is decimation, of course, which makes it the imperial unit of punishment.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
True dat. This is what population genetics overwhelmingly shows. People stay put.
There is some fascinating (if a bit ugly) evidence around the world of how the mixing worked in terms of sexes.
When the resultant population is largely descended from A plus females from B, it says something fairly clearly…
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
It's complete nonsense as applied to the modern world.
We are talking historians studying the 8th century
If I recall correctly you were originally talking about an Anglo Saxon identity in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Yes which is also correct as I pointed out earlier as those nations also have English Anglo Saxon heritage and the US English and German Anglo Saxon heritage
The Telegraph War on Inheritance Tax continues apace. A theory: they are trying to push rishi towards abolishing it as a desperate last-ditch election winner either now (and dare Lab to reinstate it) or as the first thing I will do when you reelect me.
Not an obviously bad idea given the unreasonable effectiveness of Osborne's pledge in seeing off GB's snap election.
A complementary theory is the Telegraph, which demands to know how every Labour policy hint will be paid for, will not ask how the abolition of inheritance tax will be paid for. Probably some Telegraph bigwig has cottoned on to their own future liability. The Telegraph warns of IHT hitting BTL landlords, so that might be the place to start.
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
That’s a really interesting article on Reddit. 19th century nationalists did project current beliefs back into the past (eg the notion of pure, manly Germans locked in centuries of struggle against degenerate Latins).
Of course, plenty of modern historians do something similar, projecting modern concerns about race, gender, sexuality, and class conflict into past societies in ways that are anachronistic.
I don’t think one could draw much of a distinction between Danes and Anglo-Saxons, in the 8th and 9th centuries, save at the religious level, which was all-important, back then. Back in the 6th or 7th centuries, I think tribal identity would have been most important.
But, this is no more than informed speculation.
I do think Anglo-Saxon remains a useful shorthand, even if ethnicity was viewed very differently back then to the way we view it.
Useful for what is a salient question.
Perhaps for considering a moderately cohesive cultural grouping ?
Horrible Histories just calls them all Saxons in 'Smashing Saxons', so I think that should settle it.
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
True dat. This is what population genetics overwhelmingly shows. People stay put.
There is some fascinating (if a bit ugly) evidence around the world of how the mixing worked in terms of sexes.
When the resultant population is largely descended from A plus females from B, it says something fairly clearly…
Such as the Faroes. Women were one of the spoils of war, back then.
That’s a really interesting article on Reddit. 19th century nationalists did project current beliefs back into the past (eg the notion of pure, manly Germans locked in centuries of struggle against degenerate Latins).
Of course, plenty of modern historians do something similar, projecting modern concerns about race, gender, sexuality, and class conflict into past societies in ways that are anachronistic.
I don’t think one could draw much of a distinction between Danes and Anglo-Saxons, in the 8th and 9th centuries, save at the religious level, which was all-important, back then. Back in the 6th or 7th centuries, I think tribal identity would have been most important.
But, this is no more than informed speculation.
I do think Anglo-Saxon remains a useful shorthand, even if ethnicity was viewed very differently back then to the way we view it.
Useful for what is a salient question.
Perhaps for considering a moderately cohesive cultural grouping ?
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for our moderately cohesive cultural grouping
That didn’t work then, since any definable Anglo-Saxon culture (in the historic sense) has long merged into other cultures.
The Tories need to STFU about Labour receiving donations from Dale Vince .
The cesspit party should then return all their Russian blood money ! You may disagree with Just Stop Oils actions but protesting to save the planet is at least a noble endeavour.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
First, what we now know as England had been significantly depopulated due to adverse climatic conditions and plague, Secondly AIUI, it’s suggested that many of the ‘invaders’ were male and look ‘local’ wives. Or anyway, mixed race children were born. It was notable that when Cheddar Man’s DNA was studied a local direct descendant was found.
Since at the next GE I'm going to be a swing voter I've started to compile lists on the Tories and Labour's pros and cons. Near the top of the list of negatives for Labour for me is the halt in new North sea oil and gas licenses - interesting to see that the Gen Sec of the GMB agrees with me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwuCCHPYKMY&t=292s I assume this plays well up North London
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
True dat. This is what population genetics overwhelmingly shows. People stay put.
Indeed. Language and culture tend to spread faster.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
It's complete nonsense as applied to the modern world.
We are talking historians studying the 8th century
If I recall correctly you were originally talking about an Anglo Saxon identity in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Yes which is also correct as I pointed out earlier as those nations also have English Anglo Saxon heritage and the US English and German Anglo Saxon heritage
There's definitely no such thing as 'German Anglo Saxon heritage' in any universe.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Yes, but he takes 1066 and all that as historical record.
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
But NOT primarily pure Celts (with a few Romano British) as they were before. Instead the remaining Celtic nations were now Wales and Ireland and Brittany in particular and to a lesser extent Scotland rather than England which emerged in the 10th century out of the 8th century Anglo Saxon Kingdoms with some Normans added on in the 11th century
I take issue with the word "pure" there. Even my mixing narrative squashes a lot of complexity and diversity out of the picture and the word "pure" goes too far. The Saxons arrivals added a "new" ingredient into the mix. That Saxon flavour became more concentrated in parts of what we now know as England, but you need to shift away from unscientific ideas of purity and primordial ethnic identities.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
But NOT primarily pure Celts (with a few Romano British) as they were before. Instead the remaining Celtic nations were now Wales and Ireland and Brittany in particular and to a lesser extent Scotland rather than England which emerged in the 10th century out of the 8th century Anglo Saxon Kingdoms with some Normans added on in the 11th century
I take issue with the word "pure" there. Even my mixing narrative squashes a lot of complexity and diversity out of the picture and the word "pure" goes too far. The Saxons arrivals added a "new" ingredient into the mix. That Saxon flavour became more concentrated in parts of what we now know as England, but you need to shift away from unscientific ideas of purity and primordial ethnic identities.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
First, what we now know as England had been significantly depopulated due to adverse climatic conditions and plague, Secondly AIUI, it’s suggested that many of the ‘invaders’ were male and look ‘local’ wives. Or anyway, mixed race children were born. It was notable that when Cheddar Man’s DNA was studied a local direct descendant was found.
Yes, I meant to bring Cheddar Man into the mix and then forgot. It's a a real clincher when you think about what it does to the "Saxons drove all the Celts into Wales" argument.
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
So pre Covid the deficit was lower than Labour left in 2010.
Unemployment is now less than 4%, Labour left unemployment at 8% in 2010
You Tory apologists are happy to blame COVID and Ukraine as exceptional circumstances, but conveniently ignore the global financial crash of 2008.
Because war and pandemic are external factors - whereas claiming to have abolished the economic cycle, and running deficits after a decade and a half of continuous growth, that was a decision of the government, from which the UK has still not fully recovered.
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
Facts yes, but without context. Pretty sure the UK government ran up deficits in 1939-45 too. Covid was a war that needed paying for.
COVID didn't start until 2020. So what went wrong in all but one of the previous ten years?
Really? Did you forget 2008? And 'there's no money left'?
Time for a change yes, but context for data is important too.
I did and then I added it in as a global event that the government of the day had to deal with, just like COVID, or Ukraine, which you have thrown into the pot as a "get out of jail free" card.
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
But NOT primarily pure Celts (with a few Romano British) as they were before. Instead the remaining Celtic nations were now Wales and Ireland and Brittany in particular and to a lesser extent Scotland rather than England which emerged in the 10th century out of the 8th century Anglo Saxon Kingdoms with some Normans added on in the 11th century
I take issue with the word "pure" there. Even my mixing narrative squashes a lot of complexity and diversity out of the picture and the word "pure" goes too far. The Saxons arrivals added a "new" ingredient into the mix. That Saxon flavour became more concentrated in parts of what we now know as England, but you need to shift away from unscientific ideas of purity and primordial ethnic identities.
Like Scottish and Scots?
Well... yes. There are no "pure" Scots. We know of several distinct waves of settlement into what is now Scotland too. No different.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
The Anglo Saxon cultural identity disappeared sometime around the fourteenth century along with the language.
HYUFD's misdirection has been successful in shifting this from a claim about ethnicity -- which is uncontroversially true -- to one about the existence of a cultural group.
If someone claims there is no meaningful way you can talk about a distinct Anglo-Saxon ethnicity, they are right. But the deliberate warping of that to "they're saying the Anglo-Saxons didn't exist!!!ONE!!" to provoke the stupider Telegraph readership is quite different.
It's pretty hard to reconstruct the actual lives of most people from so long ago with any certainty at all. But big things - like a language going from fairly widespread use to being virtually incomprehensible in a bit over two centuries - aren't disputed.
The widespread availability of cheap genetic sequencing has exploded a lot of old ideas about populations, but it's still a relatively new field of study, and no doubt there will be some more surprises along the way.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
True dat. This is what population genetics overwhelmingly shows. People stay put.
My take on this debate: The Telegraph is an increasingly daft newspaper, and I say this as someone broadly sympathetic to its worldview. (Sample headline from the past week 'why the working from home cult will permanently lower house prices.') There is a lot for someone of a right-ish disposition to be grumpy about in the modern world, but that doesn't mean we should actively go searching for it when it isn't there (though of course there is, as someone has noted above, a commercial case for doing so.) Instinctively, I'd suppose Cambridge University to be in the wrong about most things, but I'm not sure this is the case here.
Anyway, my view (and there is so much here that we cannot know, and I am no professional historian so my understanding is drawn entirely from second hand sources) is that the 400-800 period saw more of a cultural replacement than a population replacement - though it is clear there was SOME migration across the North Sea. What is something of a mystery is why England, unlike other parts of the Roman Empire which were subsequently overrun by Germanic tribes like France and Spain ended up with a Germanic culture rather than a Latin one (or indeed a pre-Latin one). Possibly this implies a catastrophic population collapse in post-Roman Britain (we know the plague was about then). I am also interested by the theory I have seen proposed that pre-Roman Britain was actually much more Germanic (in the east, at least) than is popularly supposed.
My favourite lefties are the ones who criticise Osborne for ‘austerity’ and all criticise him for not cutting the deficit faster.
Austerity doesn't work. As the UK has proved.
+1 Austerity is why we ended up with Brexit - when the history is finally written it will be the death by thousand small cuts that local councils were forced to do that resulted in Brexit...
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
Facts yes, but without context. Pretty sure the UK government ran up deficits in 1939-45 too. Covid was a war that needed paying for.
COVID didn't start until 2020. So what went wrong in all but one of the previous ten years?
Really? Did you forget 2008? And 'there's no money left'?
Time for a change yes, but context for data is important too.
I did and then I added it in as a global event that the government of the day had to deal with, just like COVID, or Ukraine, which you have thrown into the pot as a "get out of jail free" card.
Yes - Labour had to deal with it too. And then the Conservatives.
I am shocked that Andy "Bandwagon" Burnham has joined the left-wing nut-jobs against Keir Starmer.
Supporting an anti-Semite, there is nothing Burnham won't do. The man is utterly useless.
I find the Lab 'I'm more anti antisemitism than you' virtue signalling competition unutterably tedious, but which antisemite is Burnham now supporting?
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
The Conservatives inherited a deficit of 11% of GDP in the fiscal year ending 31.03.10.
So you agree the Tories have failed economically then.
Well they got the deficit from 11% of GDP to 2% pre-Covid, and even in the current financial year, it will still be well below the level they inherited.
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
Facts yes, but without context. Pretty sure the UK government ran up deficits in 1939-45 too. Covid was a war that needed paying for.
COVID didn't start until 2020. So what went wrong in all but one of the previous ten years?
Really? Did you forget 2008? And 'there's no money left'?
Time for a change yes, but context for data is important too.
We haven't forgotten it. Its just that "there's no money left" was a joke rather than actual fact. Tories cling to it for dear life, hoping that everyone will ignore the huge explosion in the national debt since then and not ask if a much smaller number did mean "there's no money left" then what does a much bigger number mean?
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
First, what we now know as England had been significantly depopulated due to adverse climatic conditions and plague, Secondly AIUI, it’s suggested that many of the ‘invaders’ were male and look ‘local’ wives. Or anyway, mixed race children were born. It was notable that when Cheddar Man’s DNA was studied a local direct descendant was found.
Yes, I meant to bring Cheddar Man into the mix and then forgot. It's a a real clincher when you think about what it does to the "Saxons drove all the Celts into Wales" argument.
Anyway I'm not sure exactly what crimes Cambridge University is supposed to have committed against the term 'Anglo-Saxon' - they seem to still have a department of 'Anglo-Saxon, Norse & Celtic' according to this website:
'Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic (ASNC for short) is a degree course which you can only study in Cambridge. It focuses upon the history, languages and literatures of the different peoples of the British Isles and Scandinavia in the early medieval period — in other words it does for these peoples what Classics does for the ancient Mediterranean world. It will therefore appeal to anyone fascinated by the early histories and writings of the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Celtic peoples.'
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
The Anglo Saxon cultural identity disappeared sometime around the fourteenth century along with the language.
HYUFD's misdirection has been successful in shifting this from a claim about ethnicity -- which is uncontroversially true -- to one about the existence of a cultural group.
If someone claims there is no meaningful way you can talk about a distinct Anglo-Saxon ethnicity, they are right. But the deliberate warping of that to "they're saying the Anglo-Saxons didn't exist!!!ONE!!" to provoke the stupider Telegraph readership is quite different.
It's pretty hard to reconstruct the actual lives of most people from so long ago with any certainty at all. But big things - like a language going from fairly widespread use to being virtually incomprehensible in a bit over two centuries - aren't disputed.
The widespread availability of cheap genetic sequencing has exploded a lot of old ideas about populations, but it's still a relatively new field of study, and no doubt there will be some more surprises along the way.
Even the evolution of language needs to be handled with care. There's much that can be done regarding reconstruction from extant sources but extant sources are scarce from some periods and represent a very narrow section of society. Making inferences on the evolution of the language used by the peasants in the fields (that is, the great majority of the population) from the scattered and fragmentary writings of church scribes is a narrow and perilous path.
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
Facts yes, but without context. Pretty sure the UK government ran up deficits in 1939-45 too. Covid was a war that needed paying for.
COVID didn't start until 2020. So what went wrong in all but one of the previous ten years?
Really? Did you forget 2008? And 'there's no money left'?
Time for a change yes, but context for data is important too.
My favourite lefties are the ones who criticise Osborne for ‘austerity’ and all criticise him for not cutting the deficit faster.
They use the same argument that US Republicans do. Huge deficits pay for themselves. So, a government can borrow 11% of GDP forever, because the resulting economic growth will cover the cost of servicing the debt.
They use the same argument that US Republicans do. Huge deficits pay for themselves. So, a government can borrow 11% of GDP forever, because the resulting economic growth will cover the cost of servicing the debt.
The words “Ponzi scheme” come to mind.
Have you forgotten the Tory PM that was in power less than a year ago? The one who crashed the economy?
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
First, what we now know as England had been significantly depopulated due to adverse climatic conditions and plague, Secondly AIUI, it’s suggested that many of the ‘invaders’ were male and look ‘local’ wives. Or anyway, mixed race children were born. It was notable that when Cheddar Man’s DNA was studied a local direct descendant was found.
Yes, I meant to bring Cheddar Man into the mix and then forgot. It's a a real clincher when you think about what it does to the "Saxons drove all the Celts into Wales" argument.
Anyway I'm not sure exactly what crimes Cambridge University is supposed to have committed against the term 'Anglo-Saxon' - they seem to still have a department of 'Anglo-Saxon, Norse & Celtic' according to this website:
'Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic (ASNC for short) is a degree course which you can only study in Cambridge. It focuses upon the history, languages and literatures of the different peoples of the British Isles and Scandinavia in the early medieval period — in other words it does for these peoples what Classics does for the ancient Mediterranean world. It will therefore appeal to anyone fascinated by the early histories and writings of the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Celtic peoples.'
If you follow the links earlier to Reddit and the Telegraph, you'll find some talk about that department renaming itself, to the consternation of people who care little about academia other than as a foil for expressing their own political views.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
But NOT primarily pure Celts (with a few Romano British) as they were before. Instead the remaining Celtic nations were now Wales and Ireland and Brittany in particular and to a lesser extent Scotland rather than England which emerged in the 10th century out of the 8th century Anglo Saxon Kingdoms with some Normans added on in the 11th century
I take issue with the word "pure" there...
It's a widespread phenomenon, that has its roots in nineteenth century science (along with more atavistic stuff), ignoring most of what has been since discovered.
In both North North and South Korea society, for example, the idea of 'pure' Korean bloodline is deeply entrenched (though increasingly less so in modern South Korea). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_ethnic_nationalism
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
They use the same argument that US Republicans do. Huge deficits pay for themselves. So, a government can borrow 11% of GDP forever, because the resulting economic growth will cover the cost of servicing the debt.
The words “Ponzi scheme” come to mind.
Have you forgotten the Tory PM that was in power less than a year ago? The one who crashed the economy?
No. Fortunately, she was kicked out, before she could actually crash it.
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
Facts yes, but without context. Pretty sure the UK government ran up deficits in 1939-45 too. Covid was a war that needed paying for.
COVID didn't start until 2020. So what went wrong in all but one of the previous ten years?
Really? Did you forget 2008? And 'there's no money left'?
Time for a change yes, but context for data is important too.
My favourite lefties are the ones who criticise Osborne for ‘austerity’ and all criticise him for not cutting the deficit faster.
They use the same argument that US Republicans do. Huge deficits pay for themselves. So, a government can borrow 11% of GDP forever, because the resulting economic growth will cover the cost of servicing the debt.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
True dat. This is what population genetics overwhelmingly shows. People stay put.
My take on this debate: The Telegraph is an increasingly daft newspaper, and I say this as someone broadly sympathetic to its worldview. (Sample headline from the past week 'why the working from home cult will permanently lower house prices.') There is a lot for someone of a right-ish disposition to be grumpy about in the modern world, but that doesn't mean we should actively go searching for it when it isn't there (though of course there is, as someone has noted above, a commercial case for doing so.) Instinctively, I'd suppose Cambridge University to be in the wrong about most things, but I'm not sure this is the case here.
Anyway, my view (and there is so much here that we cannot know, and I am no professional historian so my understanding is drawn entirely from second hand sources) is that the 400-800 period saw more of a cultural replacement than a population replacement - though it is clear there was SOME migration across the North Sea. What is something of a mystery is why England, unlike other parts of the Roman Empire which were subsequently overrun by Germanic tribes like France and Spain ended up with a Germanic culture rather than a Latin one (or indeed a pre-Latin one). Possibly this implies a catastrophic population collapse in post-Roman Britain (we know the plague was about then). I am also interested by the theory I have seen proposed that pre-Roman Britain was actually much more Germanic (in the east, at least) than is popularly supposed.
I guess France and Spain were an integrated part of the ancient Mediterranean economy, and the Roman Empire was an iteration of that from E.g. the Greek, the Punic etc. with vulgar Latin becoming a more established tongue, and with a more romanised population. So while yer Visigoths and whatnot took over at the top, they adapted to a society that was deeply Latinised, supported by the Latin infrastructure of the established religion.
Britain was at the extreme of Empire, never entirely held or taken, and held for a shorter time - but also crucially was distant enough from the Med that the culture didn’t take root (indeed didn’t share the roots, beyond a bit of tin trading), having not had as long and having been less culturally and linguistically colonised.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
It's complete nonsense as applied to the modern world.
We are talking historians studying the 8th century
If I recall correctly you were originally talking about an Anglo Saxon identity in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Yes which is also correct as I pointed out earlier as those nations also have English Anglo Saxon heritage and the US English and German Anglo Saxon heritage
There's definitely no such thing as 'German Anglo Saxon heritage' in any universe.
They use the same argument that US Republicans do. Huge deficits pay for themselves. So, a government can borrow 11% of GDP forever, because the resulting economic growth will cover the cost of servicing the debt.
The words “Ponzi scheme” come to mind.
Have you forgotten the Tory PM that was in power less than a year ago? The one who crashed the economy?
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Utterly wrong. For a start there was no distinction between 'Celts' and Romano-British. By the time of the Germanic migrations they were the same thing. Secondly all the evidence is that there was complete integration between the Germanic migrants and the Romano-British. This is shown time and time again across the country by archaeoleogy. Moreover the Germanic migrants had been in Britain living alongside the Romano-British since at least the end of the 3rd century. Indeed it is likely that it was they who maintained the veneer of Roman civilisation along the Thames valley for more than half a century after the withdrawal of direct Imperial control.
Nor did the Anglo-Saxons 'arrive' in the 8th century. As I said, the Germanic tribes - Angles, Saxons, Jutes and others had been arriving in Britain since the 3rd century and in significant numbers since the early 5th century.
And Offa referred to himself as Rex Anglorum more than 150 years before Aethelstan. Bede refers to 'The English' in the early 8th century.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
It's complete nonsense as applied to the modern world.
We are talking historians studying the 8th century
If I recall correctly you were originally talking about an Anglo Saxon identity in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Yes which is also correct as I pointed out earlier as those nations also have English Anglo Saxon heritage and the US English and German Anglo Saxon heritage
There's definitely no such thing as 'German Anglo Saxon heritage' in any universe.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
First, what we now know as England had been significantly depopulated due to adverse climatic conditions and plague, Secondly AIUI, it’s suggested that many of the ‘invaders’ were male and look ‘local’ wives. Or anyway, mixed race children were born. It was notable that when Cheddar Man’s DNA was studied a local direct descendant was found.
Yes, I meant to bring Cheddar Man into the mix and then forgot. It's a a real clincher when you think about what it does to the "Saxons drove all the Celts into Wales" argument.
Anyway I'm not sure exactly what crimes Cambridge University is supposed to have committed against the term 'Anglo-Saxon' - they seem to still have a department of 'Anglo-Saxon, Norse & Celtic' according to this website:
'Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic (ASNC for short) is a degree course which you can only study in Cambridge. It focuses upon the history, languages and literatures of the different peoples of the British Isles and Scandinavia in the early medieval period — in other words it does for these peoples what Classics does for the ancient Mediterranean world. It will therefore appeal to anyone fascinated by the early histories and writings of the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Celtic peoples.'
If you follow the links earlier to Reddit and the Telegraph, you'll find some talk about that department renaming itself, to the consternation of people who care little about academia other than as a foil for expressing their own political views.
Ah ok, I haven't read the paywalled Telegraph article - but it seems that the department hasn't really renamed itself? Or their website is out of date?
What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
Anything would be better than the past 13 years of economic mismanagement and self-harm.
The Tories inherited 8% unemployment, even if they lose they will leave that halved and a massive deficit from the Labour government of 2010
Tories ran the deficit up to 11.5% of GPD, Labour's worst year was 4.51%.
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91% The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?
Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:
Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
Not sure we’re any more likely to get the nuanced discussion this debate requires on pb.com any more than on Reddit or in the Telegraph (though it is nice to see the latter featuring a story which isn’t on trans, though who knows: ‘what is an Anglo-Saxon woman?’ may be the next brainwave)
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
England didn't emerge as anything approaching a nation until Athelstan in the 10th century.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My point is really that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a useless term applied in a modern context. I agree that it’s reasonably sensible to use it it in the context of 8th century history etc.
But HYUFD told us recently about the Anglo-Saxon countries today, about how the US, Denmark etc. are all the same, or something…
Anglo Saxons originally came from Germany and Denmark, they then moved to England displacing the Celts, who retreated largely to Wales and parts of Cornwall and Romano British (with some Normans later added on top at the elite aristocratic end) and the English then formed the bulk of the British colonisers of North America (where even today most Americans have ancestry from Germany or Britain and most Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians outside Quebec British ancestry too).
Wrong. Many Celts stayed put. They changed culturally but intermarried with incoming groups. The people of England became very quickly a mix of Celtic and Saxon, genetically.
First, what we now know as England had been significantly depopulated due to adverse climatic conditions and plague, Secondly AIUI, it’s suggested that many of the ‘invaders’ were male and look ‘local’ wives. Or anyway, mixed race children were born. It was notable that when Cheddar Man’s DNA was studied a local direct descendant was found.
Yes, I meant to bring Cheddar Man into the mix and then forgot. It's a a real clincher when you think about what it does to the "Saxons drove all the Celts into Wales" argument.
Anyway I'm not sure exactly what crimes Cambridge University is supposed to have committed against the term 'Anglo-Saxon' - they seem to still have a department of 'Anglo-Saxon, Norse & Celtic' according to this website:
'Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic (ASNC for short) is a degree course which you can only study in Cambridge. It focuses upon the history, languages and literatures of the different peoples of the British Isles and Scandinavia in the early medieval period — in other words it does for these peoples what Classics does for the ancient Mediterranean world. It will therefore appeal to anyone fascinated by the early histories and writings of the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Celtic peoples.'
If you follow the links earlier to Reddit and the Telegraph, you'll find some talk about that department renaming itself, to the consternation of people who care little about academia other than as a foil for expressing their own political views.
Ah ok, I haven't read the paywalled Telegraph article - but it seems that the department hasn't really renamed itself? Or their website is out of date?
I didn't absorb the exact details and can't be arsed now to go check, but it's either underway or a proposal. It's not really that important to our lives either way.
Comments
Not an obviously bad idea given the unreasonable effectiveness of Osborne's pledge in seeing off GB's snap election.
"Anglo-Saxon is a term that was rarely used by Anglo-Saxons themselves. It is likely they identified as ængli, Seaxe or, more probably, a local or tribal name such as Mierce, Cantie, Gewisse, Westseaxe, or Norþanhymbre. After the Viking Age, an Anglo-Scandinavian identity developed in the Danelaw."
It seems to me that Anglo-Saxons were a thing as much as Celts or Normans - you could make a case that all three are quite vague groupings. But then, every ethnic grouping turns out to be quite vague and I’ll defined if you look at it.
https://commonman.substack.com/p/medievalists-vs-the-middle-ages
Tangentially of interest might be this BBC podcast with Melvyn Bragg talking about King Cnut: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001kpty
I don't think you can stop parties fund-raising. But strict limits throughout the electoral cycle on what parties can spend money on combined would contain the damage. As usual I hark back to the Danish model - all parties who clear a hurdle of 20K signatures to show they're not joke parties get an hour on TV (smallest parties first) to present their views and have them questioned by a panel of journalists. Combine that with a ban on paid media advertising (which we already have for TV and radio, unlike the US) and parties will have much less need for megabucks to win. Healthier politics, and the donors can give their money to charities if they want to improve the world.
The idea that people in dark ages Europe (especially at the fringes of Rome and beyond) considered themselves as belonging to ethnic groups in the way we define them today really is debatable. That it remained a defined and coherent identity till more or less the present day, is quite a stretch, especially given the pot-pourri of genetic and cultural admixture over the centuries since. ‘English’ is a much more helpful term than ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I am unquestionably the former, but it would be a huge stretch to define me as the latter.
I can get behind it behind a vague term. As Mr. Malmesbury has said, the Celts also fall handily into that category. The reason Anglo-Saxon has become an objectionable term to some seems entirely rooted in American 'culture' today, and a desire to impose this perspective on the British past.
The Anglo Saxons arrived in the 8th century, so for historians Anglo Saxon and the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex and Kent, Essex, Sussex and East Anglia remain very useful terms for describing that period
What exactly is meant lby the phrase ‘left-wing American cultural Marxists with zero understanding of English, history, engaging in wokeism’?
Gaelic "sassenach" is afaik a genuine word, not a 19th century confection, so the celtic vs Saxon divide was recognised by the Celts. Dated to at the latest 1771 https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/scottish-word-of-the-week-sassenach-1532354 with apparent cognates in irish/Welsh/Cornish.
The Norman conquest put paid to it over the course of two or three centuries.
Of course, plenty of modern historians do something similar, projecting modern concerns about race, gender, sexuality, and class conflict into past societies in ways that are anachronistic.
I don’t think one could draw much of a distinction between Danes and Anglo-Saxons, in the 8th and 9th centuries, save at the religious level, which was all-important, back then. Back in the 6th or 7th centuries, I think tribal identity would have been most important.
But, this is no more than informed speculation.
I do think Anglo-Saxon remains a useful shorthand, even if ethnicity was viewed very differently back then to the way we view it.
If someone claims there is no meaningful way you can talk about a distinct Anglo-Saxon ethnicity, they are right. But the deliberate warping of that to "they're saying the Anglo-Saxons didn't exist!!!ONE!!" to provoke the stupider Telegraph readership is quite different.
Certainly, most of the cultural groupings wouldn’t have seen themselves as primarily defined by their group - did Normans refer to themselves as Normans very much (or at all)?
The average Labour deficit through 1997 - 2009 was 0.91%
The average Tory deficit through 2010 - 2022 was 3.93%
Labour ran a budget surplus in 4 years out of 13; Tories have run a surplus (just) in 1 year out of 13.
Undeniable facts.
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/
When the resultant population is largely descended from A plus females from B, it says something fairly clearly…
Unemployment is now less than 4%, Labour left unemployment at 8% in 2010
The cesspit party should then return all their Russian blood money ! You may disagree with Just Stop Oils actions but protesting to save the planet is at least a noble endeavour.
It was notable that when Cheddar Man’s DNA was studied a local direct descendant was found.
Near the top of the list of negatives for Labour for me is the halt in new North sea oil and gas licenses - interesting to see that the Gen Sec of the GMB agrees with me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwuCCHPYKMY&t=292s
I assume this plays well up North London
If you are referencing exceptional circumstances, what about the 2008 global financial crisis?
Time for a change yes, but context for data is important too.
Supporting an anti-Semite, there is nothing Burnham won't do. The man is utterly useless.
But big things - like a language going from fairly widespread use to being virtually incomprehensible in a bit over two centuries - aren't disputed.
The widespread availability of cheap genetic sequencing has exploded a lot of old ideas about populations, but it's still a relatively new field of study, and no doubt there will be some more surprises along the way.
The Telegraph is an increasingly daft newspaper, and I say this as someone broadly sympathetic to its worldview. (Sample headline from the past week 'why the working from home cult will permanently lower house prices.') There is a lot for someone of a right-ish disposition to be grumpy about in the modern world, but that doesn't mean we should actively go searching for it when it isn't there (though of course there is, as someone has noted above, a commercial case for doing so.) Instinctively, I'd suppose Cambridge University to be in the wrong about most things, but I'm not sure this is the case here.
Anyway, my view (and there is so much here that we cannot know, and I am no professional historian so my understanding is drawn entirely from second hand sources) is that the 400-800 period saw more of a cultural replacement than a population replacement - though it is clear there was SOME migration across the North Sea.
What is something of a mystery is why England, unlike other parts of the Roman Empire which were subsequently overrun by Germanic tribes like France and Spain ended up with a Germanic culture rather than a Latin one (or indeed a pre-Latin one). Possibly this implies a catastrophic population collapse in post-Roman Britain (we know the plague was about then). I am also interested by the theory I have seen proposed that pre-Roman Britain was actually much more Germanic (in the east, at least) than is popularly supposed.
https://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/
'Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic (ASNC for short) is a degree course which you can only study in Cambridge. It focuses upon the history, languages and literatures of the different peoples of the British Isles and Scandinavia in the early medieval period — in other words it does for these peoples what Classics does for the ancient Mediterranean world. It will therefore appeal to anyone fascinated by the early histories and writings of the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Celtic peoples.'
The words “Ponzi scheme” come to mind.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/ireland-s-austerity-budgets-1.1624617
In both North North and South Korea society, for example, the idea of 'pure' Korean bloodline is deeply entrenched (though increasingly less so in modern South Korea).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_ethnic_nationalism
The genetic evidence is, of course, quite at odds with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans#Genetics
From March 2010
Alistair Darling admitted tonight that Labour's planned cuts in public spending will be "deeper and tougher" than Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher
Britain was at the extreme of Empire, never entirely held or taken, and held for a shorter time - but also crucially was distant enough from the Med that the culture didn’t take root (indeed didn’t share the roots, beyond a bit of tin trading), having not had as long and having been less culturally and linguistically colonised.
Nor did the Anglo-Saxons 'arrive' in the 8th century. As I said, the Germanic tribes - Angles, Saxons, Jutes and others had been arriving in Britain since the 3rd century and in significant numbers since the early 5th century.
And Offa referred to himself as Rex Anglorum more than 150 years before Aethelstan. Bede refers to 'The English' in the early 8th century.