Nationalists.....

I am referring to names at the time of the invasion where Fitz was not Irish and where other names indicated ethnic group. What these names became is not at all the point as you well know.

Why do you refer to Nationality again?

I do not mean blood I mean ethnicity with all its inconsistencies which were by no means as pronounced in the late 12th century. What Cameron and Sunak have to do with I know not you appear to have become unstuck in time.

I found this;
"Surnames have historically played a significant role in Northern Ireland, particularly during the period known as “The Troubles.” These surnames often indicated religious or political affiliations, and discrimination based on them was prevalent."
Perhaps it is wrong who knows but I still found it so I am not alone and I have heard it before.

The East India Company ruled India until post the Indian Mutiny. The rights to collect taxes and provide governance was ceded to the Company by the local rulers.

I do not need to show that Normandy ruled England I just have to show that England was ruled by a colonial power and all the levers of power were in the hands of that power.

They were ethnically Norman, just the Irish were ethnically Irish and the Welsh ethnically Welsh. Anglo-Saxons were also a separate ethnic group.

Can you show me where I said the name `fitz`was an Irish name in 1175? You can't , because I never made that claim , and so we can add this to the long line of dishonest arguments you have made through this thread to deflect from your puerile argument. The point about the name Fitzgerald for example , is that it became an Irish name over a few generations as these lords became Irish , and are known to us from history as the old anglo Irish aristocracy. The same as the normans in England became the English elite in a few generations , and the normans in scotland became the Scottish elite.

 Its s a simple straightforward point sandy. 

The point is though these were the English elite by this stage. By ethnic group you are simply trying but failing to dismiss them as English because of yet again ancestry. Is Charles king of England today ? By your argument , by blood and ancestry he is not , as his name is Charlie saxe Coburg gotha. 

 You name , or ancestry doesn't determine your nationality , nor whether or not you are the legitimate ruler of England by contemporary rules and definitions. 

 
course its the point. Your desperate argument is now reduced down to England was a colony because some people had French ancestry , and funny names. Thats not the definition of a colony is it? 




Eh? Because your whole argument hinges on nationality. Your argument is that these people weren't the contemporary English elite . To prove that , you need to show me they were foreigners , as per the definition of a colony, and so far , you can't , and are reduced to arguing about ancestry. 


England , past and present isnt one ethnicity. At every stage in history , the English like most if not every other countrie has been comprised of different ethnic groups. Im not sure why someone of Norman descent isnt English , but someone of Celtic descent in Cornwall or Cumbria  , or danish descent in Yorkshire , gets no mention ? Every country is made up of differing groups , who blend together over time to create the identity and culture of that country. Your risible argument regarding 12th century England appears to be that if someone isnt of anglo saxon blood , ethnicity , call it what you like , or can't prove their family has lived in the country for 400 years ,then they aren't English and can't represent England. 

 im saying that's rubbish , never mind the fact it doesn't fit the definition of a colony. 



deflection. How can a UDA commander have an Irish surname like Murphy , but a Sinn Fein leader have an anglicised name such as Adams , if your name determines your nationality ? Or how you see yourself? Your ancestral name doesn't determine how you view your national identity does it? 

 

You do need to show England was ruled by either another country/region , or by foreigners to meet your definition of a colony. That you can't , speaks volumes for how puerile your argument is. 


The normans were a collective name for people who were flemish , Frankish , Scandinavian , Gaulish and Breton  . The Irish were made up of differing ethnic groups themselves such as Scandinavians , Pictish , Gaelic , and even people of both anglo saxon and British descent.

 You are constantly conflating ethnicity , ancestry , with the people who make up a nation. England wasn't a single ethnic group , same as ireland France scotland or anywhere else. So my point is , the normans were merely one part of the many ethnic groups in England , and represented their country England as the English elite of the 12th century. They are as English as the anglo saxons ( themselves different germanic tribes rather than a singular group) the Scandinavians or the Celts . 


 

sure John , but this isnt about what other countries and cultures view their descendants. 

 Modern British nationality law is quite clear who is and who isnt a British national. If we apply Sandys failing ancestry argument to sunak , he can't be British , and can't represent Britain. Are you aware of any nationality law past or present in these islands that disqualifies you from nationality of a country by not having proof your family has had  four hundred years of residency , or not having anglo saxon blood? im not.

I bet though John the vast majority of people in modern Britain cannot trace their ancestry back more than a few hundred years , probably the early 19th century at most , unless  perhaps your family had royal blood , or  were landowners. We are all a mixture of differing peoples .