The Irish invaded the UK.....actually

py2006

Interesting article here about the genetic make up of people from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Ok, NI is unsurprising but 44.8% of the Scots are of Irish ancestery and just look at the attached pic and you can see that in fact the Irish invaded the UK...ehem!

The Ancestry study found stark differences in the genetic make-up of people living in the UK. For example, English people have significantly less Irish ancestry - just 20 per cent of their genetic make-up - on average compared to people living in Scotland (43.84 per cent), Wales (31.99 per cent) and Northern Ireland (48.49 per cent).

English people have significantly less Irish ancestry - just 20 per cent of their genetic make-up - on average compared to people living in Scotland (43.84 per cent), Wales (31.99 per cent) and Northern Ireland (48.49 per cent).

biko

They didn't have a flag at the time.

Duckworth_Luas

It seems that they are using British to mean Anglo-Saxon and Irish to mean the pre-Roman peoples of Britain.

Change the thread title.

Your Face

Did the Irish invade with a view of complete subjugation?

Flippyfloppy

Unless the British originally invaded Ireland before everything, so which came first, the chicken or the egg gov'nor

Sapphire

Was this not down to them raiding Ireland for slaves, like St Patrick was?

cfuserkildare

What time period is this information based on?

Scots requested to kick-out English in 1314-1317 taking around 5000 troops,

Amount of Irish that left Ireland and worked up from Liverpool to Ayr to Glasgow from 1842 onwards.

Would need DNA from before these events to exclude these 2 events alone, never mind how many previous visits we both made!!

corner of hells

cfuserkildare wrote: »

What time period is this information based on?

Scots requested to kick-out English in 1314-1317 taking around 5000 troops,

Amount of Irish that left Ireland and worked up from Liverpool to Ayr to Glasgow from 1842 onwards.

Would need DNA from before these events to exclude these 2 events alone, never mind how many previous visits we both made!!

Timeframe ? Well 1314 to 1317 is lunch time and 1842 is teatime.

DEFTLEFTHAND

They used to stage raids on Wales alright. I suppose given half the chance and if we had the capability we would have launched a full scale invasion on Britain. Instead we decided to invite them over here instead.

kneemos

Yay.1-1.

MarkR

So... Who's up for a bit of tyranny?

KenjiOdo

Sapphire wrote: »

Was this not down to them raiding Ireland for slaves, like St Patrick was?

Think you have that back to front?? St. Patrick was born in northern England, and taken as a slave to Ireland by pirates.

py2006

KenjiOdo wrote: »

Think you have that back to front?? St. Patrick was born in northern England, and taken as a slave to Ireland by pirates.

Welsh no?

KenjiOdo

py2006 wrote: »

Welsh no?

Sorry did you mean was St. Patrick Welsh?

Wiki - states GB, but a history of Ireland book I'm reading states northern England, up to debate but he definitely was not Irish, that's for sure.

whisky_galore

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

It seems that they are using British to mean Anglo-Saxon and Irish to mean the pre-Roman peoples of Britain.

Change the thread title.

'Irish' and 'Celtic' are not necessarily the same thing.

Jawgap

Scotland is called Scotland because an Irish tribe - funnily enough called the Scoti/Scotti - who invaded, migrated and moved there in the 5th Century - the jocks tried to return the favour a few times, and invaded in 1315 to tackle the English here......they tried to put Edward Bruce (Robert the Bruce's brother) on the throne here - the intervention finished with the Battle of Faughart and Edward is buried on the Hill of Faughart.

Joe prim

KenjiOdo wrote: »

Sorry did you mean was St. Patrick Welsh?

Wiki - states GB, but a history of Ireland book I'm reading states northern England, up to debate but he definitely was not Irish, that's for sure.

St Patrick not Irish? Outrageous, next you'll be telling us Santa Claus wasn't a real Eskimo and Rudolf was a gazelle.

Fratton Fred

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

It seems that they are using British to mean Anglo-Saxon and Irish to mean the pre-Roman peoples of Britain.

Change the thread title.

If they include Pictish as Irish (which would be incorrect) then I would have thought Scotland would be more than 44% Irish.

py2006

KenjiOdo wrote: »

Sorry did you mean was St. Patrick Welsh?

Wiki - states GB, but a history of Ireland book I'm reading states northern England, up to debate but he definitely was not Irish, that's for sure.

A quick Google will show that some historians believe he was born in Banwen in Wales.

KenjiOdo

Joe prim wrote: »

St Patrick not Irish? Outrageous, next you'll be telling us Santa Claus wasn't a real Eskimo and Rudolf was a gazelle.

Thanks for your input, did you actually read the thread before trying to derail it with your immaturity?

*Reported your post

KenjiOdo

py2006 wrote: »

A quick Google will show that some historians believe he was born in Banwen in Wales.

Why I said it was open to debate. Hard thing to prove so long ago..

*If you posted this originally instead of being a d|ck, you would have saved me this post.

py2006

Charming, I was just pointing out why I thought he was from Wales

ancapailldorcha

KenjiOdo wrote: »

Why I said it was open to debate. Hard thing to prove so long ago..

*If you posted this originally instead of being a d|ck, you would have saved me this post.

There's no need to be so uncivil. Cut it out please.

sesswhat

KenjiOdo wrote: »

Thanks for your input, did you actually read the thread before trying to derail it with your immaturity?

*Reported your post

In what way is it possible to derail a thread in After Hours, about an article in a newspaper specialising in bull****, about a study carried out by a commercial company, also specialising in bull****?

cfuserkildare

Wasn't St Patrick Born in Wales, Trained as a Missionary in Orkney, then taken as a Slave by an Irish Clan?

Sapphire

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Wasn't St Patrick Born in Wales, Trained as a Missionary in Orkney, then taken as a Slave by an Irish Clan?

I had it the wrong way around so

Sorry!

LordSutch

I wonder what percentage of "Irish DNA" is descended from the Normans, Anglo Saxons etc?

...also, who were the Irish in the 1st place?

Surely to easiest & best way to get to Ireland post ice age was via the island of Britain, ergo surely the original settlers here were from Britain, or at least some of them were. This means that Irish people are actually the original Britons? Yes, no?

Discuss...

corner of hells

LordSutch wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of "Irish DNA" is descended from the Normans, Anglo Saxons etc?

...also, who were the Irish in the 1st place?

Surely to easiest & best way to get to Ireland post ice age was via the island of Britain, ergo surely the original settlers here were from Britain, or at least some of them were. This means that Irish people are actually the original Britons? Yes, no?

Discuss...

The Irish are descended from the leprechauns.

Javelin.

Badly Drunk Boy

corner of hells wrote: »

The Irish are descended from the leprechauns.

Javelin.

I think you meant "Javelinn..."

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

There's nothing new in this. History has long taught us of the Irish settlement and subjugation of the Pacts.

Around A.D. 400, people from Dál Riata began to settle across the Irish Sea along the Scottish coast in County Argyll. Other Irish migrants were also establishing footholds along the coast farther south, as far as Wales and even Cornwall, but the migrants from Dál Riata were especially noteworthy because they were known to the Romans as "Scotti" and they would eventually give their Gaelic language and their name to all of what is now known as Scotland.

It's how Scotland became a Gaelic nation.

Badly Drunk Boy

cfuserkildare wrote: »

What time period is this information based on?

Scots requested to kick-out English in 1314-1317 taking around 5000 troops,

Amount of Irish that left Ireland and worked up from Liverpool to Ayr to Glasgow from 1842 onwards.

Would need DNA from before these events to exclude these 2 events alone, never mind how many previous visits we both made!!

It's possible to track where in the world your DNA came from (more or less). I've done two DNA tests for genealogical purposes (and boy was I sickened to find out I wasn't adopted! :pac: ) but my brother has done a few others which trace the areas our ancestors came from, going back hundreds and thousands of years. Mainly Irish, with a lot of older 'strains' going back to Scandinavia, Finland and tipping Russia, as well as some (not as strong) going to the Atlantic coast and central Europe.

Samaris

The "original" settlers came to Ireland across the landbridge from Scotland about..8-10,000 years ago, as I recall from school. However, I wouldn't exactly call them Scottish. It was just general migration.

Joe prim

KenjiOdo wrote: »

Thanks for your input, did you actually read the thread before trying to derail it with your immaturity?

*Reported your post

Ooh-er missus !:o

cfuserkildare

I also remember being confused about the reason why Rome labelled Ireland as Hibernia, especially when the Hibernii were a Lowland Scotland tribe?!?

Jawgap

cfuserkildare wrote: »

I also remember being confused about the reason why Rome labelled Ireland as Hibernia, especially when the Hibernii were a Lowland Scotland tribe?!?

Think that was the Romans.......I mean what have the Romans ever done for us??? Eh?

Ptolemy the Roman geographer used it, but probably got it from a previous Greek description of the land.

Speaking of invasions......the Deva Victrix legionary garrison/fort at Chester was supposed to have been built with one eye on using it as a base to launch an invasion of Ireland by the XX Legion.......only the figured that the population density here didn't make it a prospect for taxation so they didn't bother.

Your Face

Bloody romans.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Samaris wrote: »

The "original" settlers came to Ireland across the landbridge from Scotland about..8-10,000 years ago, as I recall from school. However, I wouldn't exactly call them Scottish. It was just general migration.

Not at all. DNA analysis suggest that the first post Ice age settlers were from the Basque region of Spain and came by boat. They did not come via Scotland. The migration was from Ireland to Scotland replacing the Picts in western and South Western Scotland initially.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Speaking of invasions......the Deva Victrix legionary garrison/fort at Chester was supposed to have been built with one eye on using it as a base to launch an invasion of Ireland by the XX Legion.......only the figured that the population density here didn't make it a prospect for taxation so they didn't bother.

Probably morphed into FG and came over on de ferry?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Probably morphed into FG and came over on de ferry?

I don't know, I mean in late antiquity, the period we're talking about, the Romans had something of a habit of deifying their supreme leader who demanded unquestioning allegiance and protecting him with Praetorians who tended to deal brutally with dissent (as well as having a nice line in flags)......so more like the Shinners really

topper75

Jawgap wrote: »

T.....only the figured that the population density here didn't make it a prospect for taxation so they didn't bother.

AFAIK, population density would not have varied much from Britain at the time. Britain only really diverged from us in that regard through the Industrial Revolution.

I don't know the reason why they didn't to be honest.

You can guess away to your heart's content.

My own guess is that there was no centralised power to take down so it would have gone on "ad infinitum" as they would say themselves, legions tied up firefighting around the island for relatively little gain.

goose2005

Samaris wrote: »

The "original" settlers came to Ireland across the landbridge from Scotland about..8-10,000 years ago, as I recall from school. However, I wouldn't exactly call them Scottish. It was just general migration.

Recently extended to 12000 years after incised bear bones from the period were found.

LordSutch wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of "Irish DNA" is descended from the Normans, Anglo Saxons etc?

...also, who were the Irish in the 1st place?

Surely to easiest & best way to get to Ireland post ice age was via the island of Britain, ergo surely the original settlers here were from Britain, or at least some of them were. This means that Irish people are actually the original Britons? Yes, no?

Discuss...

Travel by water was easier than travel overland in the premodern era; a large amount of the "original" Irish came over from Iberia.

goose2005

cfuserkildare wrote: »

I also remember being confused about the reason why Rome labelled Ireland as Hibernia, especially when the Hibernii were a Lowland Scotland tribe?!?

The Iverni (Iouernoi) lived in Cork/Kerry

recylingbin

LordSutch wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of "Irish DNA" is descended from the Normans, Anglo Saxons etc?

...also, who were the Irish in the 1st place?

Surely to easiest & best way to get to Ireland post ice age was via the island of Britain, ergo surely the original settlers here were from Britain, or at least some of them were. This means that Irish people are actually the original Britons? Yes, no?

Discuss...

Basques, apparently.

Jawgap

topper75 wrote: »

AFAIK, population density would not have varied much from Britain at the time. Britain only really diverged from us in that regard through the Industrial Revolution.

I don't know the reason why they didn't to be honest.

You can guess away to your heart's content.

My own guess is that there was no centralised power to take down so it would have gone on "ad infinitum" as they would say themselves, legions tied up firefighting around the island for relatively little gain.

Peter Heather in his work looked at it and at the time Britain was invaded it was marginally 'profitable' as a province and really the only reason they pushed so far north beyond Chester & York was for reasons of security.

Similarly with Germania - beyond the Rhine / Danube the population densities just didn't stack up and what people there were tended to be drawn towards the frontier anyway.

Ireland would've required a naval 'lift' so would've been more expensive again to get a legion across - but they did trade with the locals, there's plenty of artefacts to support that idea and it's likely they used the island as a source of slaves for the villa farms - just as the Irish raided them for slaves. I think there was also some evidence that they paid small amounts of tribute (as protection money) to keep the raiding in check - only a tiny fraction of what they gave the Huns though!

cfuserkildare

Jaxx Sharp Squadron wrote: »

Not at all. DNA analysis suggest that the first post Ice age settlers were from the Basque region of Spain and came by boat. They did not come via Scotland. The migration was from Ireland to Scotland replacing the Picts in western and South Western Scotland initially.

Ehmmm,

SCotland was populated thousands of years before the Picts arrived,

The Picts were Celts and named as Picts ( by the Romans) because we painted ourselves up before battle. ( ie " The Painted Ones ").

Also, the theory that Scotland was populated by Irish Basques falls apart when we see the submerged camp sites in the North Sea.

Also, flint from Lanarkshire confirms population in Scotland from at least 14'000 Years ago! or 12'000BC!

A Little Pony

No surprise to this Imperialist orangie.

Wibbs

recylingbin wrote: »

Basques, apparently.

Jaxx Sharp Squadron wrote: »

Not at all. DNA analysis suggest that the first post Ice age settlers were from the Basque region of Spain and came by boat.

Or not. More recent research has found we have no direct links with the Basques and the genetic marker previously thought shared is different between the two groups. Oh and the Basques aren't as ancient or as isolated either. DNA taken from prehistoric Basques show them to be different. Modern Basques while having an extremely ancient language are basically more "recent" isolates of Spanish and French in their areas. Basically they look more spanish or french than say dutch.

Anyway… Irish cave bears also look like "northern Spaniards" rather than the cave bears found in Britain and the rest of Europe. They hardly came across by boat did they? It seems what happened and has happened elsewhere is that earlier bears and humans were pushed to the fringes by later genetic influx, so what we see at the fringes like Ireland and northern Spain is the echoes of those original isolated groups.

As for the "British". THis recent study is another example of how badly so called science can be produced these days. The sample size is tiny for a start. 2000 IIRC. It also shows how some UK based media outlets think. So the Daily Mail has British = White English(which it pretty much did and does still in the minds of many).

The original Britons would have been pretty similar to the original Irish. The main difference being that that island had more influx and more sustained external influx from Rome, then the Saxons, Vikings and then their French descendants. We had the Vikings and Normans to some degree, but missed out on Saxons and not as in such numbers. This influx still generally follows from east to west, with the east and south showing more external genetics dropping off as you go westerly. IIRC was it the Blasket islanders who had subtly different genetic makeup to the rest of Ireland?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Ehmmm,

SCotland was populated thousands of years before the Picts arrived,

The Picts were Celts and named as Picts ( by the Romans) because we painted ourselves up before battle. ( ie " The Painted Ones ").

Also, the theory that Scotland was populated by Irish Basques falls apart when we see the submerged camp sites in the North Sea.

Also, flint from Lanarkshire confirms population in Scotland from at least 14'000 Years ago! or 12'000BC!

I didn't say the migration from Ireland was the first into Scotland. Far from it, as my earlier post says.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't know, I mean in late antiquity, the period we're talking about, the Romans had something of a habit of deifying their supreme leader who demanded unquestioning allegiance and protecting him with Praetorians who tended to deal brutally with dissent (as well as having a nice line in flags)......so more like the Shinners really

Sounds even more like FG tbh. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PKF93HZv0

Waitsian

Badly Drunk Boy wrote:

I've done two DNA tests for genealogical purposes (and boy was I sickened to find out I wasn't adopted! ) but my brother has done a few others which trace the areas our ancestors came from, going back hundreds and thousands of years.

What tests, and which company, if I might ask please, did your brother use? Sounds intriguing.

LordSutch

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

It's possible to track where in the world your DNA came from (more or less). I've done two DNA tests for genealogical purposes (and boy was I sickened to find out I wasn't adopted! :pac: ) but my brother has done a few others which trace the areas our ancestors came from, going back hundreds and thousands of years. Mainly Irish, with a lot of older 'strains' going back to Scandinavia, Finland and tipping Russia, as well as some (not as strong) going to the Atlantic coast and central Europe.

This thread really should be in the history/heritage forum such is the complicated forensic & scientific nature of the subject.