Irish and Scottish

[JoondalupJ]

The wide range of accents is because people don't move between places as often and everyone spoke like the people surrounding them.

It's why the UK has a wider range of accents than the white Commonwealth and the United States.

JoondalupJ
I recall reading that Richard the Lionheart did not speak a word of English and only spoke Occitian (sp)

Yes I believe that's true , Richard didn't speak English.
Whether he could and just didn't, I don't know , but he also spent hardly any time in England either . He was fighting or being held for ransom most of the time he was King.

What a life , but a very dangerous one!

 

[Pessimistic]

Also whats wrong with Scottish culture ?

go to a pub and theres two beers, Lagger or heaaavvy ? that's it

 

[pokerspiv]

There you go. As an Aussie the most fascinating thing about the British Isles is the abundance of different accents , even down the road a few miles. Amazing.

Yeah my British friends find it hard to believe that everyone in Australia has the same accent despite living thousands of miles apart. But you have to remember that some areas of Great Britain have been settled for over 10,000 years. Australia had only just been populated before the invention of radio, so we've been hearing each other speak since basically the birth of the country. It's not surprising we all sound quite similar.

 

[LanceRomance]

Yes I believe that's true , Richard didn't speak English.
Whether he could and just didn't, I don't know , but he also spent hardly any time in England either . He was fighting or being held for ransom most of the time he was King.

What a life , but a very dangerous one!

At that point England ruled over most of France and his mother was the famous Eleanor of Aquitaine.

The empire at that point was known as the Angevin Empire then King John messed it up.

 

[The_Reaper]

At that point England ruled over most of France and his mother was the famous Eleanor of Aquitaine.

The empire at that point was known as the Angevin Empire then King John messed it up.

It's a bit odd.
The Kings of England happened to be dukes/counts etc of many French duchies and counties so they directly ruled land which was still part of the Kingdom of France. It wasn't really the sort of empire that would emerge in later years because during Medieval times countries didn't exist so much as the land holdings of various noble families.

And the Dukes of Burgundy where stronger and richer than any kings but were still technically only dukes.

 

[Roylion]

JoondalupJ
I recall reading that Richard the Lionheart did not speak a word of English and only spoke Occitian (sp)

There is no evidence that Richard did not know at least some English. He was born in England and was raised there until he was eight years old. He spoke Occitan and a French dialect called langue d'oil, a group of dialects that includes French and Norman-French. He also had a rudimentary grasp of Latin.

 

[Roylion]

My last question. About 300 years went past while the Normans held power in France then some of the rest of Europe, then of course England, their families finally ran out of power when the Plantagenats (spelling?) took power. I know these folks were French , but I don't know if they were Normans?

Henry II, the first of the Plantagenet (or more correctly the Angevin) kings was the great-grandson of William the Conqueror, through his mother the Empress Maud (Matilda). Henry II became King of England, 67 years after the death of William.

 

[John]

Not all of the Lowlands were Pro-British. I the times of the Jacobite armies the North East of the Lowlands was a Jacobite stronghold.

It's around these times that a lot of Scotland's secular troubles began.

I would add that IMO a lot of Scotland's secular problems were also a fair bit earlier than the Jacobite uprising. One of the problems with calling the English Civil war the "English Civil War" is that it was more a British and/or 3 kingdoms civil war. The 2nd Bishops War in Scotland in these times was a essentially a civil war with secular issues. wiki covers it well IMO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_in_the_Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms

To quote the very good Charles Carlton in This Seat of Mars "The second was a Civil War within Scotland, a conflict between the Lowlanders and the Highlanders, who were divided by geography, culture, language and religion. The Lowlanders were more economically
advanced, spoke English and were Presbyterians; the Highlanders were organized into clans, lived on the economic margins, spoke Gaelic"

I enjoy reading about this period of history enormously.

 

[The_Reaper]

Henry II, the first of the Plantagenet (or more correctly the Angevin) kings was the great-grandson of William the Conqueror, through his mother the Empress Maud (Matilda). Henry II became King of England, 67 years after the death of William.

And Queen Elizabeth is descended from both William the Conquer and Harold Godwinson

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Yes well Varus found that out in the Teutoburg forests fighting Armenius (Herman) while Augustas was Caesar. The Germanians slaughtered several thousand of Romans who had been sucked into the area by treachery , Armenius had fought in the Roman army, too.

Not sure about the Normans being all French . Obviously they had French racial mix in them but they are the result of Viking (northmen ) adventures into the region where the French kings had to give them land to settle, or be slaughtered.The Nordic warriors travelled much further across Europe than I knew until recently, even forming a special guard for the Eastern European Empire in later times.

I think England was every bodies bitch , for centuries and is made up of those people.

I'm not sure whether the Romans created the britons , perhaps in name Rome called it Brittania something like that. But as a people they were there as you said much before the Romans and had many different tribes.
Boudica 's people were also slaughtered in the end by the Romans ,taking the caravans of family along to watch the battle, they got locked into a bottleneck and killed by the thousands .

I guess what has always confused me was who were these people, of, I think they called it Albion, Obviously some came from Spain/France Gaul /Iberia not sure of those names , but the Stonehenge people were maybe even earlier , or some even earlier than them.

I always thought the original britons were a people who inhabited those Islands before any invaders, and also formed the earliest Britons, Welsh, Scots and Irish. Of course England the word comes from Anglo, and in a book I read about St Bede the locals in Northumbria called the newer invaders those bloody englanders or anglanders.

It is amazing really the fact that Anglo Saxon Celtic people are looked upon as the beginning- and the middle -and end the English all over the world are today.
Yet who the hell were the real beginning race in that land 5000 years ago.

Or maybe there were none , perhaps the place was uninhabited in the beginning.

Define the beginning. Humans has been living on the British Ilses for tens of thousands of years and never have they been truly isolated from Europe.

Britain is most certainly a foreign concept made up by the Romans, as is Spain and greater Germany. Similarly Scotland is the adoption of Roman term for the people who lived in what would be the kingdom of Dal Riata, a kingdom that consisted of lands in Scotland and Northern Ireland. This kingdom played an important role in the establishment of the clan system and the collapse of the more tribal Pictish culture, which would pave the way for the establishment of Scotland. Scotland was a Norman kingdom no different from England, it's identity doesn't come from it's stronger celtic culture it comes primarily from it's own unification through war and independence from England in the later middle ages.

What we're talking about isn't about blood lines or the idea of first peoples, we're talking purely about identity and culture. The reality is that "English" people in England are for the most part genetically indistinguishable from those in Scotland, Ireland and Wales. The majority of native people in the British Isles share a common pre-celtic genetic heritage, (proto neolithic).

The Anglo Saxons didn't ethnically cleanse Celtic Brittonic people from England, it's highly likely that the Anglo-Saxons were familiar with the people of southern Britain long before their arrival and that they might have even shared a similar language with them perhaps even family names. This would be consistent with how the original Celtic migration(s) would have displaced or transformed existing cultures in the British Isles thousands of years prior, they arrived in waves, slowly over a long period of time. This makes sense as peoples closest to continental Europe would have more in common with them.

I'm a filthy Scot on my Fathers side. My clan was from Loch Alsh, and my surname though anglicized beyond comprehension has it's true origins in Ireland. They were Dal Riatians who immigrated to Scotland at least 1500 years ago.

On the flip side my grandfather family on my mothers side are Irish Catholic, but their name has it's origins in northern France, before it made it's way into Cumbria some time during the middle ages and gained prominence and then finally Ireland where it was eventually anglicized and spread around the world thanks to the Irish diaspora.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Define the beginning. Humans has been living on the British Ilses for tens of thousands of years and never have they been truly isolated from Europe.

Britain is most certainly a foreign concept made up by the Romans, as is Spain and greater Germany. Similarly Scotland is the adoption of Roman term for the people who lived in what would be the kingdom of Dal Riata, a kingdom that consisted of lands in Scotland and Northern Ireland. This kingdom played an important role in the establishment of the clan system and the collapse of the more tribal Pictish culture, which would pave the way for the establishment of Scotland. Scotland was a Norman kingdom no different from England, it's identity doesn't come from it's stronger celtic culture it comes primarily from it's own unification through war and independence from England in the later middle ages.

What we're talking about isn't about blood lines or the idea of first peoples, we're talking purely about identity and culture. The reality is that "English" people in England are for the most part genetically indistinguishable from those in Scotland, Ireland and Wales. The majority of native people in the British Isles share a common pre-celtic genetic heritage, (proto neolithic).

The Anglo Saxons didn't ethnically cleanse Celtic Brittonic people from England, it's highly likely that the Anglo-Saxons were familiar with the people of southern Britain long before their arrival and that they might have even shared a similar language with them perhaps even family names. This would be consistent with how the original Celtic migration(s) would have displaced or transformed existing cultures in the British Isles thousands of years prior, they arrived in waves, slowly over a long period of time. This makes sense as peoples closest to continental Europe would have more in common with them.

I'm a filthy Scot on my Fathers side. My clan was from Loch Alsh, and my surname though anglicized beyond comprehension has it's true origins in Ireland. They were Dal Riatians who immigrated to Scotland at least 1500 years ago.

On the flip side my grandfather family on my mothers side are Irish Catholic, but their name has it's origins in northern France, before it made it's way into Cumbria some time during the middle ages and gained prominence and then finally Ireland where it was eventually anglicized and spread around the world thanks to the Irish diaspora.

Well I wasn't arguing any point I was asking a question. But never the less I am unsure of the fact that people had been living on those isles for tens of thousands of years. People may have been , who knows. But 5 thousand may be nearer, I don't know, people moving from Africa over thousands and thousands of years. It would seem to me that these British islands were populated by the human race moving .And they were moving everywhere!

I certainly aren't arguing about whether the Nordic /Scottish/Irish /British, Anglo Saxon,French, what ever you like, Italian I guess too, with the Romans, and of course not all the Roman soldiers who came to Britain were Italian either , so that is why I find it curious, what a fantastic mix of people , and really we all know it is a very mixed history and mixed peoples.
That's why I believe that it has been a place that was empty and then loaded by many many different types of people, over a few thousand years.
Its unknown, or at least not proven solidly yet by the people who dig up the past. Thanks .

 

[telsor]

Well I wasn't arguing any point I was asking a question. But never the less I am unsure of the fact that people had been living on those isles for tens of thousands of years. People may have been , who knows. But 5 thousand may be nearer, I don't know, people moving from Africa over thousands and thousands of years. It would seem to me that these British islands were populated by the human race moving .And they were moving everywhere!

I certainly aren't arguing about whether the Nordic /Scottish/Irish /British, Anglo Saxon,French, what ever you like, Italian I guess too, with the Romans, and of course not all the Roman soldiers who came to Britain were Italian either , so that is why I find it curious, what a fantastic mix of people , and really we all know it is a very mixed history and mixed peoples.
That's why I believe that it has been a place that was empty and then loaded by many many different types of people, over a few thousand years.
Its unknown, or at least not proven solidly yet by the people who dig up the past. Thanks .

Just a quick look at wikipedia...

pre homosapiens were there from ~700,000BC (flint tools found), oldest humanoid remains ~480,000BC

Cro magnons were there about 33,000 years ago.

Almost completely gone by 23,000 years ago (ice age).

Return about 14,700 years ago as the ice retreated...Supposedly ~80% of DNA of modern Britons date from around this time, so later 'invasions' didn't matter that much from a genetic viewpoint.

 

[fabulousphil]

Bit off tangent but celts were actually as far east as china, the Chinese authorities have tried to hush all this up.

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/10/the-mysterious-european-mummies-of-china/

http://frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/redheaded-tocharian-mummies-of-uyghir.html
.......


The lowlands Scots that were transplanted to northern Ireland by the English subsequently immigrated to the USA and accounted for many of the first Presidents and founding fathers.

Quite a industrious group of people really and the backbone of the American Revolution

 

[Gus Poyet]

The lowlands Scots that were transplanted to northern Ireland by the English subsequently immigrated to the USA and accounted for many of the first Presidents and founding fathers.

Quite a industrious group of people really and the backbone of the American Revolution

Also the same people who are the forefathers of America's most backwards and racist regions.

Redneck and Hillbilly being terms which originate from these people.

 

[fabulousphil]

Also the same people who are the forefathers of America's most backwards and racist regions.

Redneck and Hillbilly being terms which originate from these people.

That's debateable, but rednecks, the hillbilly .... conjure up things like stills, banjo's etc and stock car racing at a later date

 

[Gus Poyet]

That's debateable, but rednecks, the hillbilly .... conjure up things like stills, banjo's etc and stock car racing at a later date

Well they are the ancestors of the Scots plantationers who went to the US.

 

[fabulousphil]

Well they are the ancestors of the Scots plantationers who went to the US.

You misunderstood my post, i agree they are the same people, i am just not sure they are America most racist and backward mob.

The Scotch Irish, ( lowland Scots) were treated pretty bad by the English who sent them to Northern Ireland and once there they weren't exactly welcomed by the native Irish either.

Not all of them were Plantation owners, in fact the majority were standard working class people.

 

[fabulousphil]

Yeah my British friends find it hard to believe that everyone in Australia has the same accent despite living thousands of miles apart. But you have to remember that some areas of Great Britain have been settled for over 10,000 years. Australia had only just been populated before the invention of radio, so we've been hearing each other speak since basically the birth of the country. It's not surprising we all sound quite similar.

there are differences, but Australians themselves rather than foreigners tend to pick them up.

I have always thought that Australians have a type of London accent, plenty of convicts from the prison ships around London, surprised we don't have some sort of irish lilt to it, plenty of Irish influence.

 

[medusala]

there are differences, but Australians themselves rather than foreigners tend to pick them up.

I often hear poms say they can tell. Sounds a bit far fetched to me given most cant tell the difference between the accent of an Australian and the sheep enjoying minions across the Tasman Sea.

You misunderstood my post, i agree they are the same people, i am just not sure they are America most racist and backward mob.

Obama's favourite preacher and his followers

 

[JoondalupJ]

there are differences, but Australians themselves rather than foreigners tend to pick them up.

I have always thought that Australians have a type of London accent, plenty of convicts from the prison ships around London, surprised we don't have some sort of irish lilt to it, plenty of Irish influence.

I can maybe pick a Queenslander , bit slower talk , but I think Vics get picked easier, or if you listen to an Australian/Italian second or third generation, from Victoria they have their own Australiana , pick them instantly, other than that I don't think theres much in it, WA Aussies sound like Vic Aussies to me.
Australian accent has to be a mix of cockney and Irish, maybe Kiwis influence comes from Scots, but the US well I have no idea , a lot of western movement (19th century) was done by Irish, Scots, German etc, and English , French, but where those good old boys from Alabami and Geeeooorgia get their accents is beyond me, or Texas for that matter and what about the Mexican/Spanish influence.
New Yorkers talk different too, and that was Dutch once????
Great subject though , accents always facinate me, like Canadians, they don't say about , they say aboot, pick em from a yank that way. Some anyhow. I guess its not all total.

 

[footyfan1978]

WA Aussies sound like Vic Aussies to me.
Australian accent has to be a mix of cockney and Irish,

Great subject though , accents always facinate me

West Aussies do not stand out as different generally. but South Aussies that live a lot closer are easier to notice a difference. They have a South aussie twang to their voice. but back to West Aussies there is always something weird to me about Kim Hughes and Justin Langer, Both of them seem to have this cockney to their voice and fascinates me why. The only West Aussies that do sound a little different to me.

 

[medusala]

Sound like Cockneys? Here is a real one.