I'd always believed but lacked the ability to prove, that while the cultural conquest of England (replacing the Celtic Briton culture with Romano-British, later Anglo-Saxon, and finally Anglo-Saxon-Norman) was pretty darn well complete, it was done so not by replacing the peoples themselves (nee: the British conquest of North America) but merely changing the language and culture of the people already there were living (more akin to the Spanish conquest of Mexico and South America).
As such, a people calling themselves staunchly "British" I surmised were a lot more "Briton" than they might have once wanted to admit, particularly in light of their continued suppression of more obviously Celtic cultures under them like Wales and Ireland.
Well,
two articles have now come out showing that the average Brit is more likely to be Celtic rather than Anglo-Saxon by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. They also show some surprising (or perhaps not) data that there's still a lot of strong regional localities (East Anglia for example) maintaining a stronger level of genetic isolation in spite of modern travel technology contributing to the great mosh that is America or the areas around London.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
