Lucius

I bet that's handy.

neon

Oliver Cromwell was bread from Eire! he comes from a Scelt clan name (Well) whitch came from the latin name (Wel) under the Queens desison and holy roman catholic genisis Scelts are Celts not true under eirean law whitch is conserved by the terms of inquistion of a republic there is a clear difference between Scelts and Celts. almost all Scelts got there names in latin and celts in arabic celts whos gean pool survived by saxon adopted saxon charteristics and so the aribics and latins reconised Scelts as a different race.
Cromwell comes from the name of two kings one a Crom a brown saxon also another different race from the red saxon under eireaan law but not under queens disison. the wells were bread all over eire and survived by celts until 1300 when roman and viking race joined forces to rape under holy war and impearilism once more a Scelt named well sought help fight the rapist armys a deamon was born Cromwell an anglo saxonised celt comming from a scelt and a saxon but under holy roman catholic gensis a victoryian
The war went on cromwell sought to regain public ways of life in britan but lost to scotland cornwall but won in the last remaining eireaan state ireland to this day there is war geneva war crimes broken in ireland still child abusers sent in by the roman catholics and impearlists sent into eire to corrupt the republic into poverty and thier believes like rome was the first republic

Belloc

This reminds me of something I read about the American Revolution, where the Americans often claimed they were preserving true Anglo-Saxon liberty against the Norman tyranny in England.

Richard Stanbery

Excellent post, Toltec!

Really, the best way to trace in an undisputed fashion whatever nobility one may have in thier lineage (though it dilutes with every generation) is the inheritance of lands and titles. Perhaps that is why so many of the old English (Norman) laws saw everything passed to the oldest living male heir?

At least, there was a chance of keeping the lands in the family. At least for a while, that is.

redcoat

Actual its not a myth, while the direct line to the Norman's died out in the royal family, the aristocracy in Britain are mostly decended from the Norman lords who came with William the Bastard.

Athelstan

I remember reading that, pause for breath, Thomas Jefferson believed in Anglo-Saxonism. He saw parallels in rights of Anglo-Saxons being trampled by Normans to the situation of American Rights being curtailed, as he saw it, by the Crown. He even planned new States that would be populated by an extensive breeding program of original stock; it’s somehow wrapped up in Manifest Destiny.

Personally I don’t believe a word of it, even the term Anglo-Saxon is debatable. The people who fought with King Harold in 1066 regarded themselves as English, although Harold himself was half Danish. Its been said that if the English Nobles put half as much effort into fighting the Normans as they did in to marrying their daughters to Norman knights William wouldn’t have stood a chance. Just like the Vikings in Normandy seem quickly to have become French so the Normans in England quickly became English. Geoffrey Wac was a Norman knight who took possession of land once owned by Hereward, a famous English resistance fighter. Geoffrey’s family would, to prove their English credentials rename their supposed ancestor Hereward the Wake. Of course the English Nobles for a time spoke French but so did the Scottish hence Robert de Bruc. There have always been groups that want to think they’re special and groups, like the Levellers at the Putney Debates, that think they are put upon because of some great calamity in the past.

flaxman

Where did you get these figures from?
I calculate that if I go back to 1800 in my family I have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents and 16 great great grandparents. Thats a total of 30 direct ancestors. So to travel back another hundred years to 1700 I accumulate over 2000 more direct ancestors.

I'm sorry but am I missing something here or do I need a direct injection of stem cells into my brain.

DreamWeaver

Really, that gets you back to 1800? My great great grandparents only gets me back to later 19th Century.

DreamWeaver

Assuming 4 generations a century (not always the case but its not an unreasonable assumtpion)



the 264 greatXgrandparent you have by 1800, each of them will have 8 great grandoparents,

264 (x2 parents each) then (x2 grandparents each) etc etc.

Draw it out on a piece of paper, and count it up, each parent, grand parent will have 2 parents each, and they will ahve 2 parents etc etc. It soon adds up and yoiu realize just how many people you have to account for

PraiseGod_Barebones

The Norman Yoke hypotheses has always intrigued me a little just because it reminds me of a book by Peter Laslett 'The World we have lost which paints pre industrial Britain as an idyllic place and the modern world as a corruption of that. I always imagine the people during the civil war who banded these complaints about like this book, 'in the olden days you could walk down the road without being accosted by crusty jugglers and stinking idiots with guitars' etc, much like today's older generation who in their day didn't have nonces just amorous PE teachers and flirty priests.




Basically the thrust of my argument is this, that the people who at the time idealised Saxon England were wrong and it wasn't that great, plus there call for votes for every man, and I'm talking mostly about the Levellers here were in fact not that. They were votes for only man but not every, there interest in securing suffrage for the common man only went as far as improving there own statuses and didn't extend to the rank and file, contrary to rather lazy assumption the Levellers were not made up rank and file but rather quite well to do men. And as far as the norman yolk theory as a catalyst in rebellion goes we can safely say that when people were asked why they were at war they weren't saying because of Norman oppression but rather because of modern grievances. Plus many of the men who fought against Charles owed their own positions to the norman system, if this was truly about un doing that work then all feudal titles would have been abolished.

However if a person must read more about this I recommend the brilliant if totally misguided work of Christoper Hill, that is always a good place to start as he has written extensively on the idea.