Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 30th, 2017, 01:49 AM   #61
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: England, 200 yards from Wales
Posts: 1,303

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
Er... not Baker, Carpenter, Fletcher, Archer, Turner, Fuller, Adler, Walker, Hunter, Cotter, Miller, Butcher, Fisher... these are purely trade/occupation based surnames.

the others might sometimes have French origins in the words but the surname maybe taken after master/lord/employee, town of origin, local geography, physical traits .... surnames will give you very little insite into genetic ancestory.
Absolutely. Even when they do give insight they can only tell you about one (direct male line) ancestor among the million or more you had in, say, the 11th century. To say someone is "actually French" on the basis of a surname is to ignore at least 99% of their ancestry.
johnminnitt is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 30th, 2017, 02:11 AM   #62

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 5,227

The DNA of England is overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon/Germanic. though this could be mixed in with Norse as there was little to differentiate the two. However, if using placenames and dialectical/linguistic points, then we the DNA evidence largely matches this. Southern England/Midlands, plus Yorkshire and Lancashire, are overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon in DNA patterns, or at least Germanic since there must be some Norse in the mix. Considering Norse settled in the old Wessex areas too, there must be some modern day people living in Wiltshire, Hampshire, Sussex, Kent, and Somerset with Norse DNA. I'd imagine many in Leicestershire, Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, and Nottinghamshire are a broad mix of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and the baseline Celtic DNA.

Using French surnames is not that accurate, since somebody named Woodville could have been from a village with that name, but had Anglo-Saxon, Norse, Celtic ancestors.
notgivenaway is offline  
Old October 30th, 2017, 02:12 AM   #63

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 5,227

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warwolf View Post
Nope. Harold II was.



It wasn't William's throne. The Witan decided that Harold Godwineson would be the new king on Edward's death. William's relationship to Edward - they were cousins - is not important, as the Anglo-Saxons did not have a hereditary monarchy. They elected their monarchs - and they elected Harold. It was the Normans who introduced hereditary monarchy to England.
Exactly so. St. Edward had no right nor authority to grant anybody the throne.
notgivenaway is offline  
Old October 30th, 2017, 02:44 AM   #64
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,393

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eryl Enki View Post
In France as you move North and East it becomes more Germanic and down south more Gallic and Latin. Nowadays though it's less homogeneous but you can still see a trend; if you are good at noticing subtle changes in features.
No Vascons or Iberians then? The Aquitanians spoke a Vasconic language and french basques still exist. No Occitanians?
authun is offline  
Old October 30th, 2017, 03:05 AM   #65
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,393

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
Er... not Baker, Carpenter, Fletcher, Archer, Turner, Fuller, Adler, Walker, Hunter, Cotter, Miller, Butcher, Fisher... these are purely trade/occupation based surnames.
The reason why some of these occupational names are often confused as being of french origin is that the word is french. Butcher is from Bouchier for example. Sometimes there are two occupational surnames, one french in origin and one english in origin. Ambler, from french Ambleur, one who walks the horses and Palfreyman, someone who works with the english Palfrey horse. But, an occupational surname is just an indication of occupation, not origin. The names are a sign of the emerging artisan class in the 14th century. Another important thing to remember, names were quite fluid and occuptional names were not inheritied. James, carpenter, son of Stephen, builder, from Barrow could be known by various names.
authun is offline  
Old October 30th, 2017, 03:24 AM   #66
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,393

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnminnitt View Post
Absolutely. Even when they do give insight they can only tell you about one (direct male line) ancestor among the million or more you had in, say, the 11th century. To say someone is "actually French" on the basis of a surname is to ignore at least 99% of their ancestry.
Probably more because 98% of your dna is effectively flushed out after 25 generations and replaced by more recent input. If the pool of people remain 'similar' then the dna will be replaced by dna from other 'similar people'. But, just one outsider, cuts that old link by half. So, even though my surname is germanic and the name existed in the heart of england for centuries, wives with names like Evans and Jones probably swap out entire chunks of that older DNA and my gt grandfather was born in North Wales after his father moved there and then married a scottish woman with a distinctly irish surname. Yet my paternal lineage is solidly scandinavian. None of my lot have lived there for at least 1500 years and the genetic input of 60 generations or so cannot be ignored, each generation replacing 50% of the genetic makeup that went before.

Last edited by authun; October 30th, 2017 at 03:42 AM.
authun is offline  
Old October 30th, 2017, 05:19 AM   #67

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 8,590

There have been several surveys and DNA analysis of the UK population over the past few years with varying interpretations and focus.
This map from the New Scientist most adequately addresses points made on this thread.

The Romans left barely any genetic traces, nor did the Normans and the Scandinavian Vikings hardly any despite occupying large areas of the North of England. There appears no distinctive difference between the populations settled by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes in the fifth and sixth Centuries and those occupied by the Danes who invaded from the eighth to the eleventh century suggesting that they were genetically homogenous on both sides of the North Sea.
The Britons--pre roman Celts and Romano-British, don't seem to have been a single ethnic group as modern residents of the "Celtic Fringe" have distinctive heritage from North to South and the West Country still harbours substantial inherited genetic history from the first post-ice age settlers.
Most significantly there are negligible Norman traces--for all their influence on law, society and language--they appear to have bred their heritage out very quickly by taking on the local girls.

Naturally--this is all statistical stuff and everyone has bits of everything and is just a guide.



Click the image to open in full size.




Click the image to open in full size.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old October 30th, 2017, 06:37 AM   #68
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2017
From: Poland
Posts: 20

I believe that Normans didn't colonize England or Wales in numbers large enough to overcome the Anglo-Saxon genes. Maybe there is more French/Norman DNA left in descendant of noble families which were often Norman (Wilhem the conqueror surrounded himself with his cousins and friends from his fatherland).
Copernicus is offline  
Old October 30th, 2017, 06:44 AM   #69
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: England, 200 yards from Wales
Posts: 1,303

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
I believe that Normans didn't colonize England or Wales in numbers large enough to overcome the Anglo-Saxon genes. Maybe there is more French/Norman DNA left in descendant of noble families which were often Norman (Wilhem the conqueror surrounded himself with his cousins and friends from his fatherland).
Even in any Norman noble families that have survived until now (and very few have - as nobility) those Norman genes would surely be thoroughly diluted through marriages with all sorts of other lines over a thousand years.
johnminnitt is offline  
Old October 30th, 2017, 07:24 AM   #70
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 2,975

What's is exactly norman DNA? Who are the major participants in the formation and development of this early medieval ethnic group. Rollo and his northmen, very close to jutes, angles and saxons, frankish population of Normandy, also germanic ppl and celto-romans. On other hand anglo-saxon lords were also somewhat mongrels/ certainly not 'pure blood' jutes, angles or saxons of their initial invasion. 650 years and more from roman withdrawal to 1066 is a lot of time. So germanic & celtic ppl - some of the latter speaking latin vulgate in the past.

EDIT: The main 'ethnic' difference between the conquerors and the conquered is language. Old english vs old french.

Last edited by At Each Kilometer; October 30th, 2017 at 07:29 AM.
At Each Kilometer is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
1066, english, hate



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1066 - an overrated date in English history notgivenaway Medieval and Byzantine History 8 October 15th, 2016 03:11 AM
English society 410 to 1066 johnincornwall European History 17 December 3rd, 2015 01:16 AM
Should the English have submitted to William immediately after Hastings in 1066? Uhtred European History 14 January 16th, 2014 01:46 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.