Get ready to wave them flegs - Lily Windsor's coming

[armaghniac]

Lizzie is the Woman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWz1zfrsY50

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

And of course you have Roscommon people who can't play for their own County 

There  ya are! I fixed it for ya.

Have a bit of respect for the real capital of Ireland ( Cruachán/Rathcroghan) before all those unwashed interlopers took over our land.

Yes it was the Real Capital of the Gaelic Kingdom of Ireland (mostly in culture rather than actual consolidation), but Castlebar was the Capital of the first Irish Republic  Down with the Kings, up the Republic 

[lawnseed]

joe higgins in the dail today wants to charge the queen of england for b+b

[MW]

Guys if you look at the history of Scotland you will discover that the Scots culture and Gaelic Language was brought to Scotland by the Irish when they
No no no no no no, this is not true. Ireland was the original Scotia. The Scots were/are a tribe of Irish Gaels. These Gaels colonised Western Scotland and the Isles successfully, they and their decendents managed to briefly control the remaining Picts to the East and the Cumbrics (Britons/North Welsh - St.Partrick's people). The even briefly had the upperhand against the Angles/Anglish/Lowlanders in the South East.

The Lowlanders/Angles/Anglish orginiated in Germany, they had their own Proto-English language (now known as Lallans or *****). They were offshoots or closely related to the Northumbrians.

The Gaels and Angles worked simultaneously to take control of what we now understand to be Scotland. It is unclear if they were working together. The Gaels attempted to conquer Northumbria but were stopped. Their decendents (Gaelic/Irish Speaking) did form the Kingdom of Scotland (basically East-Ireland) to replace the Kingdom of Pictland. The Cumbrics and Lowlanders/Angles were subservant. Much later the Lowlanders gained the upperhand, as this process took place Gaelic/Irish spoken in Scotland went from being Scots to being Gaelic while Anglish became known as Scots. That is were the confusion lies.

1. Ireland was Scotia, then both Ireland and Scotland were Scotia, then Ireland was no longer known by this name except to the French and Scotland was Scotia, then the French stopped calling Ireland Scotia. Scotia eventually became known as Scotland.

2. Irish/Gaelic was Scots and Anglish/Lallens was not, then later much later Irish/Gaelic was no longer known as Scots, instead Anglish/Lallens took up the mantle.

The Scots who colonised Scotland from Ireland were mostly Gaels, the Scots who colonised Ireland from Scotland were mostly Germanic Angles.

Another group the Norse fell into the mix somewhere in the middle, but those on the Shetlands and Orkney stayed mostly lowal to Scandinavian Kings for a long time.
The Outer Hebridies Norse got Gaelicised and switched their loyalty to the Irish/Gaels, intermarrying with them.

(***** above is just because I didn't want to say Scots that early in the explanation)

I like your use of "Anglish" – I've thought myself before that this term would be a neat way to deal with the fact that "Angle" and "English" were at the time synonymous but the latter soon came to encompass all the Germanic groups in what's now England ("the Saxons" and "the English" being separate groups now sounds odd, as does referring to the Angles of what's now southern Scotland as "English"). But I'd never seen it used before.

[MW]

William Wallace protrayed as a Gael in Braveheart but argued to be a Lowlander by Lowlanders was almost certainly a Cumbric (North Welsh/Briton). Wallace was a Lowland name for Welsh. It seems his family spoke Cumbric up to a generation or two before Williams time, they had adoped Angle culture by his time.

Indeed - "Wallace" as a name indicates ancestry within a British (Cumbric as you put it) population, group or individual assimilated into an Anglish group. "Wealas" was the English word for British people, it had the literal meaning "foreigners". As you say this is where "Wales" is derived from.

Given the Kingdom of Strathcylde etc, it's interesting that many people of (Lowland) Scots ancestry will have families that would originally have been (Cumbric) British, assimilated into Anglian/English communities, and then "nationalised" as Scots (taking on the label originally applied to Gaels but not being assimilated).

[MW]

You ignore the fact that when their ancestors arrived in the 13 colonies and early United States of America, they were Irish and proud of it, only turning into Scotch-Irish (as known in North America) after the filthy Catholics arrived in numbers on those shores. You know its true.

On the other hand I disagree strongly with this. There are plenty of references to the "Scotch-Irish" recorded throughout the 18th century and even back into the late 17th century.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

You ignore the fact that when their ancestors arrived in the 13 colonies and early United States of America, they were Irish and proud of it, only turning into Scotch-Irish (as known in North America) after the filthy Catholics arrived in numbers on those shores. You know its true.

On the other hand I disagree strongly with this. There are plenty of references to the "Scotch-Irish" recorded throughout the 18th century and even back into the late 17th century.

Maybe I was rash in suggesting all of them, but I would say a majority had no issue with the Irish tag until the influx of Catholics. Not alone having no issue but proud to carry the label.

On a seperate point. The Irish population of Canada experienced a huge drop in numbers after the Fenian Invasion. This was not a result of ethnic cleansing, famine, drop in birthrates, outward migration etc. but believed to be a result of the Irish rebranding themselves British or French Canadians (probably depending on their religion or location in Canada), many norman ancestory Irish re-Francocised (!!!) their names, with Burkes becoming DeBurgos once again, or people with names like Lavelle becoming La Velle. This was meant to be a mixture of embarrassement and in many Catholics cases fear of persecution by British-Canadian authorities aftern the Fenian Invasion.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

William Wallace protrayed as a Gael in Braveheart but argued to be a Lowlander by Lowlanders was almost certainly a Cumbric (North Welsh/Briton). Wallace was a Lowland name for Welsh. It seems his family spoke Cumbric up to a generation or two before Williams time, they had adoped Angle culture by his time.

Indeed - "Wallace" as a name indicates ancestry within a British (Cumbric as you put it) population, group or individual assimilated into an Anglish group. "Wealas" was the English word for British people, it had the literal meaning "foreigners". As you say this is where "Wales" is derived from.

Given the Kingdom of Strathcylde etc, it's interesting that many people of (Lowland) Scots ancestry will have families that would originally have been (Cumbric) British, assimilated into Anglian/English communities, and then "nationalised" as Scots (taking on the label originally applied to Gaels but not being assimilated).

If I remember rightly Kent is a Jutish Kingdom and from my visits there it feels quite different even from other parts/counties in the south of England. I think there was another Jutish Kingdom in around the Isle of White, but ethnic cleansing by the Saxons may have been the cause of its extinction. From my understanding of the peoples in Britain around that time, the Saxons seemed a far nastier bunch than the Angles, Gaels, Jutes, Picts or Britons. Then againt they may just have got worse press.

We must also remember while the Gaels had a military defeat at the hand of the Northumbrians later Gaelic monks/scholars were to gain significant political power in that Kingdom for several hundred years. If I remember rightly it was at the Synod of Whitby which could be pointed to the start of the downfall of the Gael.

I don't know much about the Kingdom of Strathclyde had that any links to Dal Riada or Northumbria?

I always wonder what would have happened if Connacht had been the ones to call in some Norman help (ironicaly it was its percieved strength that made it seem unecessary, as well as its strong allies), I think they would have had more authority to create a centralised Gaelic Kingdom with Norman settlers and Norse and Norse-Gael allegiance before England could strike in an organised manner. Then alliances with Gaelic Scotland, the Norse and France might have left England at the mercy of its neighbours. I know thats a very what if scenario.

[Rossfan]

) for virtually all of that period.

The only reference I made to discrimination against Nats/Reps etc was in post #386, where I agreed that it (discrimination) was not justified by agitation by Nats/Reps against the existence of NI.

Take off the blinkers EG

You might be advised to take off your "blinkers" when reading my posts - that way, you might avoid getting the wrong end of the stick from what it is I actually write.

( although you're not the worst of them).

Gee Thanks.

you're welcome 

Catholic to 6 Co Prod .. " When are you going to treat me like a human being"
Prod " When you become like us"
(Plagurised from Capt Terence o'Neill)

If seeking an unreconstructed bigot amongst the ranks of Ulster Unionism, O'Neill would hardly be my first choice:

[/quote]

I was thinking of a patronising comment attributed to him along the lines of " If you give a Catholic a job and a good house he will be like a Protestant"

Talk about insulting someone with kindness !!!

[MW]

William Wallace protrayed as a Gael in Braveheart but argued to be a Lowlander by Lowlanders was almost certainly a Cumbric (North Welsh/Briton). Wallace was a Lowland name for Welsh. It seems his family spoke Cumbric up to a generation or two before Williams time, they had adoped Angle culture by his time.

Indeed - "Wallace" as a name indicates ancestry within a British (Cumbric as you put it) population, group or individual assimilated into an Anglish group. "Wealas" was the English word for British people, it had the literal meaning "foreigners". As you say this is where "Wales" is derived from.

Given the Kingdom of Strathcylde etc, it's interesting that many people of (Lowland) Scots ancestry will have families that would originally have been (Cumbric) British, assimilated into Anglian/English communities, and then "nationalised" as Scots (taking on the label originally applied to Gaels but not being assimilated).

If I remember rightly Kent is a Jutish Kingdom and from my visits there it feels quite different even from other parts/counties in the south of England. I think there was another Jutish Kingdom in around the Isle of White, but ethnic cleansing by the Saxons may have been the cause of its extinction. From my understanding of the peoples in Britain around that time, the Saxons seemed a far nastier bunch than the Angles, Gaels, Jutes, Picts or Britons. Then againt they may just have got worse press.

We must also remember while the Gaels had a military defeat at the hand of the Northumbrians later Gaelic monks/scholars were to gain significant political power in that Kingdom for several hundred years. If I remember rightly it was at the Synod of Whitby which could be pointed to the start of the downfall of the Gael.

I don't know much about the Kingdom of Strathclyde had that any links to Dal Riada or Northumbria?

I always wonder what would have happened if Connacht had been the ones to call in some Norman help (ironicaly it was its percieved strength that made it seem unecessary, as well as its strong allies), I think they would have had more authority to create a centralised Gaelic Kingdom with Norman settlers and Norse and Norse-Gael allegiance before England could strike in an organised manner. Then alliances with Gaelic Scotland, the Norse and France might have left England at the mercy of its neighbours. I know thats a very what if scenario.

Yes Kent and the Isle of Wight were settled/conquered by Jutes, eventually subsumed into Saxon kingdoms. The odd thing about the development of "England" and "the English people" was the very name – why did Angles, Saxons and Jutes (and probably others) come together under the label of the Angles/English, when actually it was the (West) Saxons (via Wessex, the West Saxon kingdom) who in fact eventually formed the dominant kingdom and unified "England"? Actually there are even old sources referring to the land as "Saxonia" (Saxony).  One theory I remember is that it was Bede, a Northumbrian (and therefore "Anglish") who wrote "The Eccesiastical History of the English People" who gave the concept of a unified people which brought in the Saxons and Jutes under the label "English" (which was previously synonymous with "Angle", of course).
Bede writes admiringly of the Irish/Scottish (depending on the translation – the Irish being one of the four peoples of Britain Bede lists along with the English, the British and the Picts) monks and churchmen who spread their Christian mission from the north down to the "English" lands. Though if I remember correctly he was somewhat conflicted as the Irish church had taken the" wrong" side in the Easter dating controversy while he favoured the orthodox, Roman view.
The Kingdom of Strathclyde would have been contemporary to Dal Riada and Northumbria, so I would think would have had relations with them. I actually had thought it was conquered by Northumbrian Angles, but in fact it was conquered by Gaelic Scots. British kingdoms that would fit the former bill, and covered territory that is now is Scotland, would include Rheged and Gododdin. Actually Northumbria itself was born out the merger of Bernicia and Deira, Anglish kingdoms which had a British history.

[MW]

You ignore the fact that when their ancestors arrived in the 13 colonies and early United States of America, they were Irish and proud of it, only turning into Scotch-Irish (as known in North America) after the filthy Catholics arrived in numbers on those shores. You know its true.

On the other hand I disagree strongly with this. There are plenty of references to the "Scotch-Irish" recorded throughout the 18th century and even back into the late 17th century.

Maybe I was rash in suggesting all of them, but I would say a majority had no issue with the Irish tag until the influx of Catholics. Not alone having no issue but proud to carry the label.

Perhaps so, but I think they maintained a pretty strong view of their "Scotch" identity also. Language and religion were huge markers of identity which would have helped to maintain this.

On a seperate point. The Irish population of Canada experienced a huge drop in numbers after the Fenian Invasion. This was not a result of ethnic cleansing, famine, drop in birthrates, outward migration etc. but believed to be a result of the Irish rebranding themselves British or French Canadians (probably depending on their religion or location in Canada), many norman ancestory Irish re-Francocised (!!!) their names, with Burkes becoming DeBurgos once again, or people with names like Lavelle becoming La Velle. This was meant to be a mixture of embarrassement and in many Catholics cases fear of persecution by British-Canadian authorities aftern the Fenian Invasion.

Fascinating - must try to read up on this!

[muppet]

William Wallace protrayed as a Gael in Braveheart but argued to be a Lowlander by Lowlanders was almost certainly a Cumbric (North Welsh/Briton). Wallace was a Lowland name for Welsh. It seems his family spoke Cumbric up to a generation or two before Williams time, they had adoped Angle culture by his time.

Indeed - "Wallace" as a name indicates ancestry within a British (Cumbric as you put it) population, group or individual assimilated into an Anglish group. "Wealas" was the English word for British people, it had the literal meaning "foreigners". As you say this is where "Wales" is derived from.

Given the Kingdom of Strathcylde etc, it's interesting that many people of (Lowland) Scots ancestry will have families that would originally have been (Cumbric) British, assimilated into Anglian/English communities, and then "nationalised" as Scots (taking on the label originally applied to Gaels but not being assimilated).

If I remember rightly Kent is a Jutish Kingdom and from my visits there it feels quite different even from other parts/counties in the south of England. I think there was another Jutish Kingdom in around the Isle of White, but ethnic cleansing by the Saxons may have been the cause of its extinction. From my understanding of the peoples in Britain around that time, the Saxons seemed a far nastier bunch than the Angles, Gaels, Jutes, Picts or Britons. Then againt they may just have got worse press.

We must also remember while the Gaels had a military defeat at the hand of the Northumbrians later Gaelic monks/scholars were to gain significant political power in that Kingdom for several hundred years. If I remember rightly it was at the Synod of Whitby which could be pointed to the start of the downfall of the Gael.

I don't know much about the Kingdom of Strathclyde had that any links to Dal Riada or Northumbria?

I always wonder what would have happened if Connacht had been the ones to call in some Norman help (ironicaly it was its percieved strength that made it seem unecessary, as well as its strong allies), I think they would have had more authority to create a centralised Gaelic Kingdom with Norman settlers and Norse and Norse-Gael allegiance before England could strike in an organised manner. Then alliances with Gaelic Scotland, the Norse and France might have left England at the mercy of its neighbours. I know thats a very what if scenario.

Yes Kent and the Isle of Wight were settled/conquered by Jutes, eventually subsumed into Saxon kingdoms. The odd thing about the development of "England" and "the English people" was the very name – why did Angles, Saxons and Jutes (and probably others) come together under the label of the Angles/English, when actually it was the (West) Saxons (via Wessex, the West Saxon kingdom) who in fact eventually formed the dominant kingdom and unified "England"? Actually there are even old sources referring to the land as "Saxonia" (Saxony).  One theory I remember is that it was Bede, a Northumbrian (and therefore "Anglish") who wrote "The Eccesiastical History of the English People" who gave the concept of a unified people which brought in the Saxons and Jutes under the label "English" (which was previously synonymous with "Angle", of course).
Bede writes admiringly of the Irish/Scottish (depending on the translation – the Irish being one of the four peoples of Britain Bede lists along with the English, the British and the Picts) monks and churchmen who spread their Christian mission from the north down to the "English" lands. Though if I remember correctly he was somewhat conflicted as the Irish church had taken the" wrong" side in the Easter dating controversy while he favoured the orthodox, Roman view.
The Kingdom of Strathclyde would have been contemporary to Dal Riada and Northumbria, so I would think would have had relations with them. I actually had thought it was conquered by Northumbrian Angles, but in fact it was conquered by Gaelic Scots. British kingdoms that would fit the former bill, and covered territory that is now is Scotland, would include Rheged and Gododdin. Actually Northumbria itself was born out the merger of Bernicia and Deira, Anglish kingdoms which had a British history.

Did the word eejit derive from Hey Jute or something similar?

[Tubberman]

Anthem for the visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wny_0pi4hR4

[AQMP]

I note according to the BBC this morning, the Guards have rounded up the usual suspects and armed Metropolitan Police officers will be on the streets of the Free State during the Nellie Dean's visit.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

I note according to the BBC this morning, the Guards have rounded up the usual suspects and armed Metropolitan Police officers will be on the streets of the Free State during the Nellie Dean's visit.

They must be fuckn timetravellers, fck sake you 6 county heads are pure headwreckers. IT IS IRELAND, GET FUCKN USED TO IT.