To all our English Friends on Boards

seenitall

Yes, the emigration/diaspora aspect was the next thing I thought of after posting. Thanks!

EDIT: Probably not so much in the Catholic connection then; more of a cultural thing.

Fratton Fred

An Coilean wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but were the Romano-British and the Welsh not the same group of people, the Welsh lable meaning foreigners was somthing they later picked up from the invading Saxons.
I recall reading somewhere that when the Anglo-Saxons came to Britian and established their various Kingdoms in the area that became England, that the Welsh considered those areas to be the 'lost lands'.

Anyway Irish Nationalism's problem was with the Saxon-English, not the Romanised Celtic-British tribes of preSaxon England, so Patrick being a Romanised Brit is no more of a problem than him being Welsh or French.

Irish nationalism makes the rules up as it goes along to be honest.

An Coilean

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Irish nationalism makes the rules up as it goes along to be honest.

Not really fair tbh, Irish Nationalism is not a monolith, there are many different strands and takes on different aspects.

It depends on who you are talking to as to what particular version of Irish Nationalism you are dealing with. For me, I would identify more closely with the Nationalsim of the Young Irelanders than the Socialist Nationalism of the Hunger Strikers, its a broad church so to speak but that is not the same as just making it up as you go along.

Lapin

seenitall wrote: »

Also, perhaps: Paddy's day is one of the ways to assert the national identity, as it would seem that the (in)famous 800 years left a kind of an 'identity under threat' imprint on the national psyche.

More to do with this I think. It is common for post colonial countries to celebrate their identity with a national holiday. Usually marking independence. The 4th of July in the USA is probably the best known example.

In Ireland the Easter Rising commerorations once held a higher place in the national psyche than St Patrick's Day. That diminished with the outbreak of the troubles in the late 1960s as its associations with republicanism were a bit too close too comfort while the IRA were carrying out their campaign.

As another poster said, St Patrick's Day in Ireland was largely imported on the back of emigrant celebrations abroad and due to its proximity on the calandar to Easter, it was adapted as the national day as it was relatively neutral in terms of republican affiliations.

seenitall wrote: »

My first guess: the Catholic thing. On the continent, the Catholic saints' days are a big deal, what with the flowers, the mass, the processions, the feast etc. The Protestants don't seem to care for all that stuff.

And less to do with this I think. It may be true that Catholics attach more importance to saints feast days than other Christian denominations but I doubt that is the main reason why St Patrick's day is celebrated with such widespread enthusiasm.

The day is after all, commorated by Catholics and Protestants alike.

And St Patrick wasn't a Catholic.

Wibbs

An Coilean wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but were the Romano-British and the Welsh not the same group of people, the Welsh lable meaning foreigners was somthing they later picked up from the invading Saxons.

Yes and no. It's complex stuff. There would have been a shared language along with Latin that came with the Italians, but yes they were all "British". The velnerable Bede namechecks Welsh as one of the languages of the island, but calls it "British". In any event Patricks DNA would have been "northern English"(not Saxon*) if it was anything and if you could actually tell the genetic difference between him and a bloke from Kerry, or Perth, or Somerset, especially back then.

Anyway Irish Nationalism's problem was with the Saxon-English, not the Romanised Celtic-British tribes of preSaxon England, so Patrick being a Romanised Brit is no more of a problem than him being Welsh or French.

Again not so much. Both the Saxons and the Irish had a problem with the Franco Scandinavians. They were the problem. The Normans invaded Saxon England and the Saxon king got an arrow in his eye for his trouble. They didn't integrate with the locals for centuries, didn't bother to take on their customs and couldn't or didn't bother to speak the language. Indeed the Normans integrated here far more, the a degree that became very troubling to their Norman cousins in England.

*Even the amount of Saxon influence in England is up in the air. Certainly there was a Saxon invasion, both physically and culturally, but it seems the genetics didn't stick for very long. Today remarkably few English people who might consider themselves "Anglo Saxon" have any Saxon DNA and no female lines remain(there'd be a lot more Viking/Norman DNA floating about). Kinda the way the Irish, Welsh and Scots might see themselves as "Celtic", but whatever about influences from that culture were around, the genetics tell a different story. That's the sad irony, the peoples of these islands have far more in common with each other(and have done for millenia), than they they have in common with mainland Europe.

Wibbs

Lapin wrote: »

And St Patrick wasn't a Catholic.

Well to be fair there were no Protestants back then. However the term Catholic was in use in his time and before. It comes along early in the Christian churches writings and theology. He would most certainly have allied himself to the Universal, IE "Catholic" Christian church. He would have looked to Rome and the pope as the spiritual centre of his faith.

Zebra3

summerskin wrote: »

just as the shinners wouldn't want st patrick to come over here as a briton

Can you give a link to this policy of theirs?

No?

Thought not. :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What?

It is a thread about St George's day. If the poster (or you) wants to discuss the bnp or whatever then I suggest a new thread is started rather than letting your own sour grapes derail this one.

If you can't see the connections between St George and St George's Day, I feel sorry for you.

Rubeter

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What?

It is a thread about St George's day. If the poster (or you) wants to discuss the bnp or whatever then I suggest a new thread is started rather than letting your own sour grapes derail this one.

That many people in England (also Ireland, Scotland, The US or even Australia) would have the above mentioned attitudes towards Georgie or The big J isn't discussing the BNP.
So you can sup your own sour grape juice, I'm actually drinking English sparkling wine at the moment. So.....bottoms up old chap, Sláinte Mhaith agus Lá Fhéile Seoirse sona duit.

Lapin

summerskin wrote: »

just as the shinners wouldn't want st patrick to come over here as a briton

Zebra3 wrote: »

Can you give a link to this policy of theirs?

No?

Thought not. :rolleyes:

Not 100% Zeb but I think it was meant as a joke.


Anyway, its not like the young Patrick had much say in the matter.
Not the first time round anyway.

Rubeter

Wibbs wrote: »

That's the sad irony, the peoples of these islands have far more in common with each other(and have done for millenia), than they they have in common with mainland Europe.

And one thing they have in common with the rest of humanity is that aggression is mostly between neighbours, cultures clashing not genetics.

seven_eleven

Question: Why the fúck havent the IRA bull**** posts been removed yet?

Fratton Fred

Rubeter wrote: »

I'm actually drinking English sparkling wine at the moment. So.....bottoms up old chap, Sláinte Mhaith agus Lá Fhéile Seoirse sona duit.

It shows.

Rubeter

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It shows.

What do you mean?

Seaneh

seven_eleven wrote: »

Question: Why the fúck havent the IRA bull**** posts been removed yet?

In fairness...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UytwNXpglU

statesaver

seven_eleven wrote: »

Question: Why the fúck havent the IRA bull**** posts been removed yet?

I say leave them up.

As Oscar Wilde said . . . . .

"I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

Kold

Great thanks to the op. Whilst the Irish are undoubtedly inferior, "yous lads are grrreat crack."

Rubeter

Kold wrote: »

Great thanks to the op. Whilst the Irish are undoubtedly inferior, "yous lads are grrreat crack."

Top 'o the mornin to you Sir, you are right there so you are Sir, >humbly doffs cap while gnawing a raw spud.

GRMA

seven_eleven wrote: »

Question: Why the fúck havent the IRA bull**** posts been removed yet?

aw bless

Its not healthy to froth at the mouth you know

Although they are all pretty sh!t except for "Come Out Ye Black and Tans" which tells us a great story about how the promise of the revolution was never fulfilled

seenitall

Lapin wrote: »

More to do with this I think. It is common for post colonial countries to celebrate their identity with a national holiday. Usually marking independence. The 4th of July in the USA is probably the best known example.

This is also interesting. How different nations choose different types of references to mark 'their' days nationally and/or internationally.

For France it's the day of their revolution, for the USA the day of their independence, for Ireland a saint's day, for China their New Year.

Ireland certainly seems to have a huge international profile looking at the population proportions.



So... what about St George? Would the English see it as their national day? Because the English I know here don't seem to be bothered at all.

Micky Dolenz

Thread does not fail to deliver.

Rubeter

seenitall wrote: »

So... what about St George? Would the English see it as their national day? Because the English I know here don't seem to be bothered at all.

As is common in monarchical societies nationhood is entwined with the monarch, so most "festivities" are based around the royal family, we have a national holiday on Paddy's day they on the Queen's birthday.

nucker

OP, you are so nice....oops, does this mean my English-ness is now exposed?

Fratton Fred

seenitall wrote: »

This is also interesting. How different nations choose different types of references to mark 'their' days nationally and/or internationally.

For France it's the day of their revolution, for the USA the day of their independence, for Ireland a saint's day, for China their New Year.

Ireland certainly seems to have a huge international profile looking at the population proportions.



So... what about St George? Would the English see it as their national day? Because the English I know here don't seem to be bothered at all.

You forgot Burn's night in Scotland.

I don't know too many English people that are bothered by it tbh. It got hijacked by the National Front in the eighties and got a bit of a bad name. It is being slowly reclaimed though.

I think that's why the jubilee was so big last year, it was a good excuse to go out and wave a few flags.

There is a campaign to ditch St George and get am English saint, like St Edmund or St Alban instead, although I think an English parliament will be sooner coming.

An Coilean

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes and no. It's complex stuff. There would have been a shared language along with Latin that came with the Italians, but yes they were all "British". The velnerable Bede namechecks Welsh as one of the languages of the island, but calls it "British". In any event Patricks DNA would have been "northern English"(not Saxon*) if it was anything and if you could actually tell the genetic difference between him and a bloke from Kerry, or Perth, or Somerset, especially back then.

Again not so much. Both the Saxons and the Irish had a problem with the Franco Scandinavians. They were the problem. The Normans invaded Saxon England and the Saxon king got an arrow in his eye for his trouble. They didn't integrate with the locals for centuries, didn't bother to take on their customs and couldn't or didn't bother to speak the language. Indeed the Normans integrated here far more, the a degree that became very troubling to their Norman cousins in England.

*Even the amount of Saxon influence in England is up in the air. Certainly there was a Saxon invasion, both physically and culturally, but it seems the genetics didn't stick for very long. Today remarkably few English people who might consider themselves "Anglo Saxon" have any Saxon DNA and no female lines remain(there'd be a lot more Viking/Norman DNA floating about). Kinda the way the Irish, Welsh and Scots might see themselves as "Celtic", but whatever about influences from that culture were around, the genetics tell a different story. That's the sad irony, the peoples of these islands have far more in common with each other(and have done for millenia), than they they have in common with mainland Europe.

You seem to be laying a lot of emphsis on blood and genetic difference/similarity between these groups of people.
Personally thats not where the emphsis lies in my own take on things, shared identity is more important than shared genetic traits as far as I am concerned.

AngeGal

To paraphrase Fr. Ted, They're no friends of mine!

Fratton Fred

AngeGal wrote: »

To paraphrase Fr. Ted, They're no friends of mine!

Gutted.

Rubeter

An Coilean wrote: »

You seem to be laying a lot of emphsis on blood and genetic difference/similarity between these groups of people.
Personally thats not where the emphsis lies in my own take on things, shared identity is more important than shared genetic traits as far as I am concerned.

You are not the only one, that's where the origin of the phrase "blood is thicker than water" comes from, it was originally the opposite in meaning to what it is today. It was "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb."

AngeGal

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Gutted.

Just a bit of sarcasm Fred!

GottaGetGatt

They invaded our land, now their invading our virtual one.Will this oppression ever end.

efb

Anyone for Pimms and a bar of Jerusalem???

Chuck Stone

They made us eat English Mustard for 800 years the BASTARDS!

johnnydeep

seenitall wrote: »

Thread raises a good question. I'm sure it's easy to answer, it's just I'm from the continent so a bit confused.

What's the story with the discrepancy in the huge, international yearly hoo-ha that is Paddy's Day and the decisevly smaller (not to say non-existant, in comparison) celebrations of St. George', St. Andrew' or St. David's days?

My first guess: the Catholic thing. On the continent, the Catholic saints' days are a big deal, what with the flowers, the mass, the processions, the feast etc. The Protestants don't seem to care for all that stuff.

Also, perhaps: Paddy's day is one of the ways to assert the national identity, as it would seem that the (in)famous 800 years left a kind of an 'identity under threat' imprint on the national psyche.

Maybe the mixture of the two?

Or have I just way too much time on my hands?

that's easy one country went around the world slaughtering, raping and stealing from the natives and the other one didn't.

Fratton Fred

johnnydeep wrote: »

that's easy one country went around the world slaughtering, raping and stealing from the natives and the other one didn't.

No, I'm pretty sure England did that as well.

youreadthat

An Coilean wrote: »

You seem to be laying a lot of emphsis on blood and genetic difference/similarity between these groups of people.
Personally thats not where the emphsis lies in my own take on things, shared identity is more important than shared genetic traits as far as I am concerned.

Shared identity can be falsified for political means. Hence the oh so "Celtic" brotherhood.

ballsymchugh

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You forgot Burn's night in Scotland.

I don't know too many English people that are bothered by it tbh. It got hijacked by the National Front in the eighties and got a bit of a bad name. It is being slowly reclaimed though.

I think that's why the jubilee was so big last year, it was a good excuse to go out and wave a few flags.

There is a campaign to ditch St George and get am English saint, like St Edmund or St Alban instead, although I think an English parliament will be sooner coming.

they're still hijacking it, this was brighton on sunday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI50BvRszgw

Fratton Fred

ballsymchugh wrote: »

they're still hijacking it, this was brighton on sunday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI50BvRszgw

I read about that.

200 fascists and 1000 anti fascists apparently.

Wibbs

An Coilean wrote: »

You seem to be laying a lot of emphsis on blood and genetic difference/similarity between these groups of people.
Personally thats not where the emphsis lies in my own take on things, shared identity is more important than shared genetic traits as far as I am concerned.

OK then take shared identity. Scotland, Wales and Ireland have deep cultural ties. What is England today in pre Roman times ditto. Rome changed things, but not by that much. An Irish guys headstone complete with Ogham was found deep in Roman England. Plus Rome reached here too in trade and later in a major way with religion. One could argue more Roman influence in Ireland than in Scotland in the period. This can even be seen in the language. Old Irish having quite the number of Latin loan words. By the time of the Saxon invasions cultural drift was kicking off, but even there take a look at Anglo Saxon art and craft and one would be easily convinced it was "Celtic" in origin. The same intertwining stuff is in evidence, with little of the Classical world influence.

Anyway as I said the physical invasion must not have been very large given how little of their genes remain today. So just before the Norman invasions these islands were still quite homogenous in culture with pockets of Saxons and Vikings and of the rest of the locals, some were coming here and some of us were going there(western Scotland and Wales in particular). Even Scotland the name comes from the outside world of Europe seeing them as "Scoti", a generic term for Gaels, in other words Irish folks. It was quite fluid.

The Norman invasions is where it really kicked off and lines started to be drawn. Even then it gets complex. Like I said the English were treated pretty abysmally by the Normans for centuries, from the peasantry even up to the nobles. These "English" kings may have claimed the title, but is was a geographical notion far more than a cultural one. Richard the Lionheart that so English of kings of stage and screen and tale, could barely put two words together in the language and spent only a couple of years in the place, preferring to hang out in the bit of France where he was also a king or getting a hard on from butchering Saracens.

For me anyway, the tale of these islands, especially the tale of woe is more about a class system set up by the Normans and used ever since. Your average English man(and woman) of stout yeoman stock has been treated pretty shíttily by their ruling class throughout the last millennium. Often as bad or worse as they treated the Welsh and Scots. The highland clearances was an example of geographical cleansing and similar happened in England previously with their version the lowland clearances. The common man of these islands no matter what flag he saluted was used and abused and often died for this elite. What I find odd is that the ordinary English people went along with this class war(for want of a better word), even celebrate it today. That fascination with your Downton Abbey, stately homes stuff, when it is a picture of virtual slavery of generations of men and women. Then again maybe they're now getting their own back as they traipse around these places as tourists.

The other problem with shared identity is how one goes about marking out that identity. Is a fourth generation Irish American who "wears the green" with pride more "Irish" than a bloke in Limerick who isn't particularly pushed? What is Irish identity? Language? Hardly as that's not shared particularly highly by the majority of self describing Irish people. Music? Ditto, but a little more shared(though much of it has strong commonality and links with folk music throughout these islands). HIstory? Closer alright, but like any nation there are many histories among folks here. I grew up with mates, good Catholic Irish lads with surnames like Smith and Jones and Fitzgibbon etc. Their names would suggest English, Welsh and Norse origins somewhere along the lines. It can go the other way too. Take Wayne Rooney the footballist. With the head on him he aint Swedish anyway, he was brought up Catholic and the name gives the game away, yet he lines up with three lions on his shirt. Like I say it's complex and fluid this identity thing.

seenitall

Wibbs wrote: »

OK then take shared identity. Scotland, Wales and Ireland have deep cultural ties. What is England today in pre Roman times ditto. Rome changed things, but not by that much. An Irish guys headstone complete with Ogham was found deep in Roman England. Plus Rome reached here too in trade and later in a major way with religion. One could argue more Roman influence in Ireland than in Scotland in the period. This can even be seen in the language. Old Irish having quite the number of Latin loan words.

Yes, that's something I noticed as soon as I landed here and was being taught (not in any way seriously) some Irish by some friends. For example, counting: a haon, a do, a tri, a ceathair, a cuig, a se, a seaht, a hocht, a naoi, a deich (had to look up the spellings just now!). As I speak a bit of French, I was immediately struck by the resemblance to French: un, deux, trois, quatre, cinq, six, sept, huit, neuf, dix. Of course, there is a similarity to English there as well, but look at a ceathair/quatre or a cuig/cinq in particular, as similar to each other and quite distinct from the English four and five.

Apologies for going completely off topic!

An Coilean

Wibbs wrote: »

Anyway as I said the physical invasion must not have been very large given how little of their genes remain today. So just before the Norman invasions these islands were still quite homogenous in culture with pockets of Saxons and Vikings

You are conflating genitics with culture here, you are making the asumption that the non genetic Anglo-Saxon 'locals' in Anglo-Saxon England remained culturally the same as they had been prior to the comming of those groups and the setting up of the various Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms in the area that became England. I would suggest that this is not true and that the population of that area even if not genetically Anglo-Saxon themselves became Anglicised in language and as we know came to think of themselves as being Anglo-Saxon. My point of view would be that they did in fact become Anglo-Saxon, even if not genetically.

The Norman invasions is where it really kicked off and lines started to be drawn. Even then it gets complex. Like I said the English were treated pretty abysmally by the Normans for centuries, from the peasantry even up to the nobles. These "English" kings may have claimed the title, but is was a geographical notion far more than a cultural one. Richard the Lionheart that so English of kings of stage and screen and tale, could barely put two words together in the language and spent only a couple of years in the place, preferring to hang out in the bit of France where he was also a king or getting a hard on from butchering Saracens.

For me anyway, the tale of these islands, especially the tale of woe is more about a class system set up by the Normans and used ever since. Your average English man(and woman) of stout yeoman stock has been treated pretty shíttily by their ruling class throughout the last millennium. Often as bad or worse as they treated the Welsh and Scots. The highland clearances was an example of geographical cleansing and similar happened in England previously with their version the lowland clearances. The common man of these islands no matter what flag he saluted was used and abused and often died for this elite. What I find odd is that the ordinary English people went along with this class war(for want of a better word), even celebrate it today. That fascination with your Downton Abbey, stately homes stuff, when it is a picture of virtual slavery of generations of men and women. Then again maybe they're now getting their own back as they traipse around these places as tourists.

That is one of the interesting things though, there is a huge difference between the experiance of the Normans here compared to England. In England the Normans replaced the existing political structures and maintained their own political and law customs, as well as culture and for a long time even language seperate from the pesants around them, whereas in Ireland they just took what ever land they liked the look of and quickly settled into the local political landscape and assimilated into the culture and language leaving only minor traces of their own culture and customs.
The whole 'Became more Irish than the Irish themselves'

The other problem with shared identity is how one goes about marking out that identity. Is a fourth generation Irish American who "wears the green" with pride more "Irish" than a bloke in Limerick who isn't particularly pushed? What is Irish identity? Language? Hardly as that's not shared particularly highly by the majority of self describing Irish people. Music? Ditto, but a little more shared(though much of it has strong commonality and links with folk music throughout these islands). HIstory? Closer alright, but like any nation there are many histories among folks here. I grew up with mates, good Catholic Irish lads with surnames like Smith and Jones and Fitzgibbon etc. Their names would suggest English, Welsh and Norse origins somewhere along the lines. It can go the other way too.

Identity is not black and white (Though that might be how the KKK see it) and there are plenty of people who feel that they have multiple strands to their Identity, however there are a couple of things I can say with regard to my own stance on the issue.
Identity as I see it is not based on blood, while it is often informed by history, family, religion and language, none of these things are solid barriers defining someone as being one thing or another. In my opinion, at its base Identity is a choice we make. We choose what we identify with. There are people who identify themselves as Irish for the sole reason that they were born on this Island, as I view it, that fact may make you an Irish national, but it does not necessarily make you Irish.
As to what does form an Irish identity, people will have different opinions and will lay emphsis in different areas. I can't speak for anyone else but for me the basis of my identity as an Irish person is Gaelic Culture and especially the Irish language.

Take Wayne Rooney the footballist. With the head on him he aint Swedish anyway, he was brought up Catholic and the name gives the game away, yet he lines up with three lions on his shirt. Like I say it's complex and fluid this identity thing.

Footballist? Thats the tecnical term I take it?:D

Exactly, if you look at it in blood terms then it would be tempting to claim Rooney as Irish, but if you take it as I would and put the emphsis on Identity, then Rooney is clearly, in my view at least a (Spud headed) Englishman.

Put it this way, James Connely was born in Scotland, but I would not consider him to be a Scot, I would consider him to be as Irish as I am, the same with Dev and a huge number of other Irish people.
Take Wellington on the other hand, he was born here yet I would consider him to be as English as Finchley.

holystungun9

topper75 wrote: »

Saint George and the dragon.

Long live Catalonia and long live liberty.

San Jordi i el drac.

Visca Catalunya i visca la llibertat.

America, f**k yeah!

Lapin

Wibbs wrote: »

.....What I find odd is that the ordinary English people went along with this class war(for want of a better word), even celebrate it today. That fascination with your Downton Abbey, stately homes stuff, when it is a picture of virtual slavery of generations of men and women....

This is very true.

Whenever I hear people on this side of the Irish sea lamenting 800 years of oppression, or when I lived in London, listened to English people displaying a triumphilist attitude for having once ruled a quarter of the globe, I always feel the need to point out that during the height of the British Empire, the English imperialists were sending their own people down the coal pits and up chimneys.

Mardy Bum

Bloom was talking and talking with John Wyse and he quite excited with his dunducketymudcoloured mug on him and his old plumeyes rolling about.
--Persecution, says he, all the history of the world is full of it. Perpetuating national hatred among nations.
--But do you know what a nation means? says John Wyse.
--Yes, says Bloom.
--What is it? says John Wyse.
--A nation? says Bloom. A nation is the same people living in the same place.
--By God, then, says Ned, laughing, if that's so I'm a nation for I'm living in the same place for the past five years.
So of course everyone had the laugh at Bloom and says he, trying to muck out of it:
--Or also living in different places.
--That covers my case, says Joe.
--What is your nation if I may ask? says the citizen.
--Ireland, says Bloom. I was born here. Ireland.
The citizen said nothing only cleared the spit out of his gullet and, gob, he spat a Red bank...

Fratton Fred

An Coilean wrote: »

That is one of the interesting things though, there is a huge difference between the experiance of the Normans here compared to England. In England the Normans replaced the existing political structures and maintained their own political and law customs, as well as culture and for a long time even language seperate from the pesants around them, whereas in Ireland they just took what ever land they liked the look of and quickly settled into the local political landscape and assimilated into the culture and language leaving only minor traces of their own culture and customs.
The whole 'Became more Irish than the Irish themselves'

Was there ever a "Harrying" in Ireland like in Yorkshire?

An Coilean wrote: »

Footballist? Thats the tecnical term I take it?:D

Exactly, if you look at it in blood terms then it would be tempting to claim Rooney as Irish, but if you take it as I would and put the emphsis on Identity, then Rooney is clearly, in my view at least a (Spud headed) Englishman.

Put it this way, James Connely was born in Scotland, but I would not consider him to be a Scot, I would consider him to be as Irish as I am, the same with Dev and a huge number of other Irish people.
Take Wellington on the other hand, he was born here yet I would consider him to be as English as Finchley.

And yet Wellington was probably more Irish than the other man celebrated as a national day in Ireland, Arthur Guinness.

johnnydeep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Was there ever a "Harrying" in Ireland like in Yorkshire?




And yet Wellington was probably more Irish than the other man celebrated as a national day in Ireland, Arthur Guinness.

only people outside Ireland would think that there is a national day in Ireland for Arthur guiness

irish bloke

policarp wrote: »

They don't even get a day off for their patron saint.

We don't get a day off for St Arthur's day either

BarryLyndon

This thread took a turn for the better.

Up to 6 million people in the UK have at least one Irish grandparent.

#thingswatilearnedjustnow

Lapin

St Patrick's Day, Arthur's Day and Bloomsday all in the space of a couple of posts.

Just as well they're all not public holidays.

We'd never get any work done.


Or sober up.

TheUsual

I'm not racist.

Sure my gardener is English.

An Coilean

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Was there ever a "Harrying" in Ireland like in Yorkshire?

Not really, the Norman invasion of Ireland was less a well prepared strategic invasion aimed at total dominance and more a case of inviting the neighbours over to help settle a fight and offering them a bit of land for the trouble and then a few of their mates show up too.

Really the whole thing fitted in perfectally well with the traditional system of raids and land grabs that had being going on in Ireland amongst ourselves for centuries except that the new guys had funny names. That the country ended up under the notional overlordship of the Norman King of England was not all that important to the vast majority of people as for most he was just another and distant overlord in a string of overlords they were always saddled with.

Madam_X

Rubeter wrote: »

How about the fact that he/she mentions St George? Does St George have anything to do with St Georges day?

Some feathers getting ruffled here, me thinks.

Wasn't Summerskin saying that blog about christianity being misrepresented had nothing to do with St George's day? If so, how was (s)he incorrect?