Who Counts as English?
Back in February, Konstantin Kisin and Fraser Nelson sparked a national debate over the meaning of Englishness. During a podcast discussion, Kisin — who has Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish ancestry — proclaimed: “I am not English, and I will never be English, and I don’t think Rishi Sunak is English”. Nelson disagreed, opining that “Rishi Sunak is as English as Tizer and Y-fronts”. Kisin responded, “He’s a brown Hindu. How’s he English?” To which Nelson replied, “Because he was born and bred here.”
Kisin and Nelson’s positions reflect two distinct views of what it means to be English. On one view, someone can only be English if they have English ancestry. On the other, they needn’t have English ancestry so long as they were born in England, have a British passport and are well-versed in English culture.
Naturally, Kisin’s remarks caused a certain amount of controversy, provoking the usual charges of ‘racism’. This is despite him having clearly stated that he does not consider himself English. Kisin addressed his critics in a follow-up video, pointing out that Sunak had explicitly stated that he ticks ‘British Indian’ on the census. And in the original debate with Nelson, he’d already admitted that “we’re all British, that’s fine with me”.
Indeed, the distinction between British and English is one that both Kisin and his defenders have relied upon. For example, former Home Secretary Suella Braverman wrote in the Telegraph that “I am British Asian” but “I cannot be English”.
To my mind, however, the debate can’t be so easily resolved because this distinction depends on the historically contingent fact that England is a nation within Britain. How would Braverman identify if the UK broke up and England became a separate country? How should French citizens who are not ethnically French identify? Should they say, “I cannot be French”? What about German citizens who are not ethnically German? And so on.
Furthermore, it turned out that Kisin had spoken too soon when he quoted Sunak in his follow-up video. The former Prime Minister subsequently came out and said, “Of course I’m English”, dismissing the notion that he wasn’t as “slightly ridiculous” since it would imply that even players in the England cricket team do not count.
It’s true that the native English are a distinct people, who can be demarcated not only from Indians but also from other European peoples, like Poles, Swedes, Italians and Russians. In a genetic study that sampled participants according to the rule that all four grandparents were born in the same country, Britons formed their own cluster. This cluster overlapped to a large extent with the cluster formed by Irish participants, and to a lesser extent with the clusters formed by participants from other nearby countries.
Hence if ‘indigenous’ means anything — and I do think it means something — then people with significant ancestry from the British cluster are indigenous to Britain.
Interestingly, this would imply that some individuals often thought of as quintessentially English are not wholly indigenous. For example, the late Prince Philip likely had only modest ancestry from the British cluster, with most of his genome comprising German, Danish and Russian elements. Likewise, many British Jews, including the Victorian Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, would fall into a separate Jewish cluster.
So, can only indigenous Britons be considered English? Perhaps, though not necessarily. Can an adopted child be considered a member of the family that adopts him or her? Of course. There is no scientific law that says that identity has to correspond with biology. Nor is there any rule that says everyone must agree about the meaning of Englishness. Even Enoch Powell conceded “it’s not impossible” for black people to be part of the British nation, despite affirming that nations are based on “racial similarities”.
On the one hand, it would be absurd to suggest that someone who had no British ancestry, spoke with an accent and knew little of the country was an ‘Englishman’ just because he had acquired citizenship. On the other hand, reasonable people can disagree about whether a person lacking British ancestry who was born in England and is well-versed in its culture qualifies as English.
In surveys, most people say the latter person would qualify. In 2021, just 14% of white respondents said that “only people who are white count as truly English”, whereas 77% said that “being English is open to people of different ethnic backgrounds”. This is not to suggest the debate can be settled by consulting opinion polls. But it does show that viewing identity as a simple function of biology is far from universal. Even if the percentage who believe “only people who are white count as truly English” has been underestimated due to social desirability bias, the true percentage is unlikely to be more than, say, double.
There are some questions we can answer definitively. Does everyone with a British passport have British nationality? Yes. Is there a group of people that can be reasonably described as indigenous to the British Isles? Yes. However, the question of what Englishness means does not lend itself to any simple answer.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Tizer is Scottish (A.G.Barr, Glasgow).
Pedantry over, I think that what makes a person a “true citizen” of a country is within them – a commitment to the country and its traditions, and an eschewing of any ancestral ethnic or cultural practices, including religion. This is a Christian country.
I’ll be honest, I was always more about the Tizer. You can keep your Irn-Bru as it’s rank, along with haggis, while we’re at it. Was always a fan of stovies, neeps* and tatties, though.
*Pretty sure it’s only ever been us Geordies that have recognised a turnip as the orange-fleshed root veggie. Everywhere else in England they call those things swedes. We’d go Halloweening with turnip lanterns when I was a kid. A bugger to carve, though.
Oh I love haggis. It’s called kaszanka in “Poland”, and of course it’s similar to black pudding in “England”, although the stuff labelled as such in “England’s” supermarkets is a poor shadow of haggis/kaszanka.
But under whichever power structure / mafia you find yourself, make sure you get it from a proper butcher.
Yes but have you ever had proper pease pudding? Not the vile tinned stuff either. It’s one of the things on my ”Must Have/Do” list when I come visit, right after inhaling a Greggs sausage roll at the airport, which always takes precedence. No, I’ll never be a fan of haggis or black pudding, I’m afraid.
I’ll forgive you, Mogs. I often inhale a Greggs at the airport, too!
😂 Glad I’m not alone in my guilty pleasure! Nothing says “I’m a true patriot” like making a beeline for the Greggsies before you leave the airport.🤭
I’ve stopped being ashamed. Actually, I am not sure I ever was.
“Two HOT sausage rolls please and make it snappy my good friend!”
Really? If you call a bakery staff member “my good friend”, or “my good man”, and tell them to “make it snappy”, they might well regard it as an insult, as though you are referring to them as a servant.
Ham and pease pudding in a freshly baked stotty. Unbeatable!
Haggis and black pudding are quite different entities. The former contains sheeps pluck (minced heart, liver and lights) which is not used in the latter.
Haggis, neeps, tatties and whisky gravy is a fabulous meal. Although I agree that Irn-Bru is foul.
Always called them turnips in Cornwall. I had no idea what people meant by swedes when we moved to Wales.
Culture = shared values, morals, manners, outlook, laws. This defines and governs a society and makes a National identity and Country. Culture is NOT therefore determined by ethnicity, nor traditions and customs nor religion (Pagan, Celtic-Catholic, Roman Catholic, Protestant – in our case), which can be borrowed from other societies or just change with the times … we don’t by custom wear powdered wigs anymore, and “traditional” turkey dinner at Christmas only dates to the late 1950s, when turkey became a cheaper alternative to other “traditional” fowl and meat joints.
Adopting and assimilating into a culture makes one a true citizen, otherwise just a long stay visitor.
However culture migrates – that can be a problem if a cultural group arrives in large numbers, over a short period of time, and ghettoises, when exposure to the host culture is minimal and adaptation, adoption and assimilation is not needed, or even discouraged as the lad multiculturalists here have done.
But “assimilation” does not make you an Ethnic European, from the Ethnic Tribe of English, or Scots, or Czech, or Pole, or Italians, or Swedes!
As demonstrated by an Ethnic Indian from India who was a diversity hire at a British National Museum, and always wore a Scottish tam with a large red pompom on top, claiming to be “Scottish”.
He was an “Assimilated” Ethnic Indian, but not an Ethnic European of the Scottish Tribe.
If you have somewhere else to go to call home, you are not 100% of that country.
Is Cliff Richard Indian?
England is a country, but not a State. You cannot get an English Passport; there is no English Parliament. Legally, therefore, you cannot prove that you have an English identity.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not a country, but IS a State. There is a British Passport and a British Parliament. You can prove that you have British identity, wherever in the world you originate from.
That is the difference to me.
I am English. I can prove that at least one branch of my ancestors have lived in England for many hundreds, possibly thousands of years. Other branches have come from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, so I am “a true Brit.” My genetics would prove that.
I am quite prepared to accept that citizens of immigrant stock are British. They have been accepted into “the British State.” But for me, being English is a matter of genetics and someone who has originated from Asia, Africa or anywhere else come to that, is not English and never will be.
Agreed, but what does “at least one branch” mean, specifically, and why does it alone qualify you as English?
I am sure that the 1000 year old Heretic would tell you that if you mix a little sewage into a barrel of wine, all you have is a barrel of sewage. But if you mix a little wine into a barrel of sewage, you still only have a barrel of sewage.
Having researched the family tree, my father’s family have lived in the same location in Hampshire for 600 years. Since, historically, it was a very isolated location it’s reasonable to assume they have been there for much longer.
I have acknowledged that my other ancestry comes from Scotland, Wales and Ireland …. which makes me genetically British.
And what about the genetic make up of all the individuals before you in the 600 years on you mother’s side? Did they conveniently detail their ancestry for you on ancestry.com?! That’s assuming they even knew it.
No “strangers” ever entered Hampshire in 600 years? Maybe that’s why I’ve never been. Perhaps, like Wessex, it doesn’t exist.
Come off it, o sceptical friend.
I cannot comprehend how this subject can be such a blind spot in the minds of so many “sceptics”.
Says the Czech.
Can you specify exactly which genes make someone English?
The good ones, obviously 😉
Or are they the bad ones? I get confused, there are so many of them.
Since I’m not a trained geneticist, no.
For your own sake, don’t ever employ one to examine your genetic make up. You’d dissolve, like Amelie, into a puddle of embarrassment, and, perhaps, shame…
Says the Czech.
You don’t have to “prove” anything to the Czech calling himself “Marcus Aurelius knew”.
He should be celebrating his own ancestral homeland and tribal identity, instead of trying to exterminate ours.
And you don’t have to “prove” anything to the apparently Communist Scot called “stewart”.
It’s a fair question since you write:
Unless you are saying you don’t really know what what it is to be English. But I don’t think you are.
It’s just a question of logic. You can’t claim at the same time (a) that being English is a matter of genetics (b) that you know what being English is and (c) that you don’t know which genes make you English.
I’m afraid something has to give.
As Andrea Cooke so rightly said,
“If one can say that A People never actually existed, then it’s much easier to be rid of them.”
Why are you trying to exterminate the English, Scottish “stewart”?
Except that none of that is a reasonable or fair representation of anything I have written at any time.
Clearly there as some topics that are so emotive that some people lose their basic reasoning faculties.
Why are you trying to exterminate the English and the whole concept of England, Scottish “stewart”?
Sober up.
Check out Tom Rowsell of the “Survive the Jive” Youtube channel. He sets out the actual gene/DNA makeup of the English.
Agreed. My family are the same. One branch is traceable to Lancashire in the 8th Century.
The argument of there being no such thing as an indigenous English people, whilst writing an article in the Language of The English!
And furthermore if you, as an English person were to move to Thailand and then be granted citizenship, does that make you Thai? Japan? Of course not!
It’s an absurdity.
And yet The Cultural Revolution bandwagon roles on, obliterating our culture, history and heritage in its path.
If one can say that A People never actually existed, then it’s much easier to be rid of them.
Spot on.
Andrea Cooke has given us all a great quote to remember:
“If one can say that A People never actually existed, then it’s much easier to be rid of them.”
You can prove you are English by having a DNA test.
And if we are going to be pedantic, England is a kingdom, which was united with the kingdom of Scotland when James VI of Scotland inherited the throne of England from Elizabeth I to become King James I of the united (small “u”) Kingdom of Great Britain and King James I of Ireland. The Union Flag/Jack is derived from Jame’s Royal Standard of Scottish Saltire and St George Cross superimposed.
At that time Great Britain was two States, but in 1707 it became the unitary State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, then in 1801 the unitary State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
“British” denotes legal citizenship, nothing else.
Very well put.
Much of the heat of the debate about ‘racism’ comes from the confusion between biological demes ( a local group of individuals from the same species that interbreed with each other and share a distinct gene pool) and social concepts of ‘race’. Some of the confusion is deliberately exacerbated by those trying to prove a point.
A further layer of confusion is to try and reconcile a biological deme with a political boundary (such as country or state). They may overlap, they may not.
How would you characterize being ‘American’? The continent is a melting pot of gene pools, so the definition of a county’s social group must be social – and subject to change over time.
Agreed, and this is why the whole ”England for the English” thing is totally nonsensical. Way too oversimplistic, as Noah’s article illustrates. Once you scratch the surface and analyse that statement you realise it’s far from straightforward. I’m born in England but what if one of my parents hails from a different part of Europe, or even Scotland or Wales? Would I be then less English than my black friend whose parents were both born in England but whose grandparents hail from Jamaica? But I’m white, my friend isn’t, so most would probably assume I’m the one more English. And on and on this nonsense goes. I find the whole subject a bit stupid and tedious, actually. I’m far more concerned with who is patriotic and shares the same values as me, and many such people have a very mixed background.
Thank you. Cheers!
What language do most of the Americans speak?
And Australians, New Zealanders, and Canada?
Where did that language come from?
Their ancestral homeland of ENGLAND.
If every country decided to exclude people it thought could not count that country as their “ancestral homeland”, as a certain Heretic here likes to say, then we would need another planet to put the world’s population on. And this planet would immediately be empty of humans. And we would need a third planet to act as a sort of arbitration centre. God knows who would arbitrate.
Reductio ad absurdum. Works wonders.
“England” is a set of ideas and values. Something we can say most MPs do not subscribe to. Send them away.
But then how far do you take it? If someone understands the notion of “playing fair”, is that enough to qualify them? Or do they need to understand more detailed things, such as the separation of powers, Judiciary, Executive, Legislative? Do they need to be able to recite the Kings and Queens of England?
Very tricky stuff this.
And there appear to be some people who still believe England has effective separation of powers, LOL.
Says the Czech.
Maybe this is one of the few issues that can be settled by opinion polls, in that there is no scientific answer, and no traditional or binding legal definition. Unless some invading horde comes in, replaces the inhabitants, and pronounces, “Ve are ze Eenglish now!”, then what matters in practice is who the English, in the majority, say are English.
It’s like a family – if Mum, Dad and the kids say, “Nanny has become part of the family,” a la Jacob Rees-Mogg, then she is. But she can’t insist that she is by virtue of being emploed as a nanny.
I think we’ve both made the same point at the same time. Needless to say, I agree…:-)
Mass immigration has created a situation where large numbers of people claim to be English or British; but they are really Pakistani, or Somali or whatever. We are living throuth the disintegration of Britain.
“Mass immigration” is not immigration in my book. Mass immigration means the sudden and planned movement of people instigated and supported by power structures, e.g. when it is part of government policy. The policy of the fifties, when people from distant parts of the world were encouraged en-masse to move to “England” with promises of pavements of gold and given free passports, no questions asked, was a particularly stupid and nasty thing for the authorities to push – for both the natives and the immigrants.
To me, emi/immigration is something which the individual himself undertakes, usually at great cost to himself and his family. He cannot assume the system to which he emigrates will accept him, and he must play by the rules in the hope of winning respect and recognition. But he does so because he believes it’s the route to a better life.
Well put
No.
The Entire Third World, which is 93% of humanity, want to move to the West “for a better life”.
I imagine MAK doesn’t think that the entire 3rd world should come to the UK and i certainly don’t
Then he shouldn’t use “because they want to come here” as a reason to force us to accept anyone who wants to come here.
His ancestral homeland of Czechia wouldn’t dream of such a suicidal project!
Where exactly does he suggest that you or anyone should be forced to accept “anyone who wants to come here”
He has actually said THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
Are you drunk?
Yes, Stewart, I think he is. Or bonkers.
The ancient country of Czechia is half of the mini-empire for Czechs constructed out of the really ancient country of Bohemia, ruled in personal-union by Austrian monarchs for centuries, for services rendered to the Entente war effort in 1919.
Firstly, you’re wrong about the majority of the Third World wanting to come to the west, as demonstrated by the actions of 99%+ of the people in the Third World who stay where they are. And based on my experience almost no one in non-western countries ever entertains the idea of moving from where they are.
Secondly you haven’t actually addressed the argument or the points made. In fact in this whole section your comments are just a litany of angry trolls.
According to you, the entire population of India, South America, China & Africa should be allowed to move to these small islands, JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT TO.
As you implied before, in defence of the Kurdish Terrorist and his Koran Publicity Stunt, which he pulled to speed up his Fake Asylum Claim.
It seems you are still brainwashed by the Communist Propaganda of your own ancestral homeland of Czechia.
How about if the entire Third World moves to Czechia. Would you call the Czechs “racist” for objecting?
He is saying actually the exact opposite.
You need to get off this thread, sober up, and come back when you’re a bit more clear minded.
Thanks, Stewart
England and Britain are both abstract concepts. And yet some people try to argue that only one of them is an abstract concept while the other a physical reality.
The quality of an abstract concept is that it can be defined in any way one wants. It’s usefulness relies entirely on how many people share the definition. So actually, the author is mistaken when he writes:
That is pretty much how the meaning of abstract concepts is settled – by how many people agree with the meaning.
Hear hear. And not only how many people agree, but the size of their sticks, as it were, and the ability of the “leaders” to brainwash.
The greater the levels of agreement of what “country” is indicates a greater level of totalitarianism.
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, as someone once said. Was it Oscar Wilde?
Me? I endeavour to be an archos and just go where I am treated best.
Can’t help thinking about a sailing boat…
A sailing boat… like the historic last remaining sailing tanker The Falls of Clyde, which was deliberately sunk by Hawaiian authorities in the sea 2 miles deep yesterday, to insure that it could never be salvaged without tremendous cost?
And why did they do this, despite all the efforts to save the ship and bring it back to Scotland to be restored and turned into a museum ship in Inverclyde?
Because the Communist Globalist Authorities in Hawaii were in cahoots with the Communist Globalist Authorities in Scotland to deny the ship a berth ANYWHERE, especially in Inverclyde, although they had given permission for a SHIP SCRAPYARD only a mile down the coast.
And why did they do this?
Because they want to WIPE OUT ALL THE WHITE MAN’S ACHIEVEMENTS.
History nerd here. It was Samuel Johnson who said “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel”. However, he was talking about Patriotism with a capital ‘P’: “The Patriots” was the name of a faction in the politics of his day. Patriotism in the sense Johnson referred to ceased to exist centuries ago.
I think the evidence that, at population level, genes matter, is overwhelming and people deny it through wishful thinking. The more interesting question to me is what to do about it, especially at the level of public policy. My take – strongly favour immigration (if we have any) from predominantly white European countries because their peoples are largely our genetic cousins. At the same time, everyone already in the UK legally must be treated equally regardless of their ethnic origin.
Are debates about what makes you “English” useful? Maybe. They may be part of a national conversation about what our country now means, if anything.
I think I pretty much with everything you say. Genes matter. Defining identity clearly matters as having a shared identity is what binds societies together.
But people talk about genetic background as if they knew what they were talking about. Things like “indigenous Britons” which is an idea that can be dismantled in two seconds.
Basically I like good honest arguments, not bullshit ones.
No, you are just perpetuating the centuries-old HATRED OF ENGLAND & THE ENGLISH by your Scottish ancestors, and are trying to wipe out the whole concept.
It depends what you mean by “dismantled” and “indigenous Britons”. It’s not binary or precise. But a large proportion of the population of these islands, until recently, had ancestors going back centuries or millennia. There was a lot of shared DNA. Just because something cannot be defined in completely precise terms doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. As I said, I think the more interesting argument is what we do about all this and where do we go from here.
Again, pretty much agree. These things matter and they are fuzzy. And OF COURSE just because we can’t define something it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. BUT, the opposite is true. Just because we define something (e.g. made up genders), it doesn’t make it real. Nor does it mean it is real in the way it is defined (e.g. covid vaccine).
Actually, it’s got me thinking, I wonder to what extent national identity is like one of these new genders. It eludes definition in purely genetic terms, but probably isn’t uninfluenced by genes, we just don’t know how or how much. It is highly conditioned by how people “feel”. If enough people share the same idea, you can pretty much force others to start thinking in those terms.
In any case, what I see here is a lot of emotiveness around this subject, which is understandable to a point given the state of immigration in this country.
It has certainly stimulated a lot of comments, which I think is a good thing. Many would deem me racist for saying this, but I think it’s pretty obvious that genes are a huge factor in societal/civilisational outcomes. Of course environment and happenstance play a big part too. But if you believe in evolution, environment influenced genes. I think it’s more obvious when you compare Europe to Africa, less obvious when you compare England to France. Once you go and live in places with seasons and inclement weather you have to develop Future Time Orientation to survive. People mistake these views as some kind of White Supremacism, but I don’t feel superior because I can take no credit for what has gone before. I can only take credit (not much) for how I have lived my life, and feel immensely grateful to have been born when I was, and where I was, and as a selfish person I want to preserve that, which in my view includes preserving England and Europe as predominantly White. Perhaps people born in Africa feel grateful to have been born there – I hope so, as it would be nice for everyone to be happy,… Read more »
I will join you in your heresy. It has been clearly demonstrated that there are IQ differences between races. And not just IQ differences. And not just between races but also between sexes – an observation that reliably earns me vitriol on here.
It’s silly and futile to pretend these these things aren’t so.
The problem I see is that our society has developed in such a way that it is no longer socially acceptable to have, let alone express, racial preferences.
We need to move beyond that and somehow get to a point where can have and express our preferences without it implying that we wish ill on anyone. And that includes being able to want your country to be a certain way.
We seem to be able to do that with say the physical appearance of others. At least for now we are able to not be attracted to someone, say it and act on it without it implying any ill will.
Wouldnt it be great if we could do the same with other races, cultural, ethnic groups? Sort of as it used to be, really.
Indeed. I can’t see it happening. Just talking about limiting immigration is seen by many as racist. Imagine an explicit policy limiting immigration to countries that are majority white. One of the difficulties is that it may cause discontent among the immigrants we already have – “we don’t want any more of your sort”. I can understand why some might take it personally, even if it’s not intended as such.
At a personal level I don’t see myself as having racial preferences as such. I may observe that people of a certain group are on average less likeable, to me, but that wouldn’t lead to me to taking any different action as I try to take people as I find them, and the next person I meet of Group X might be a splendid chap or chapess. But if others have firmer rules that is their business – though I suppose it gets awkward if the boss of Tesco decides they won’t serve Chinese people or whatever.
Yeah, it’s interesting.
On the one hand to me it seems perfectly reasonable to say that you don’t.want your community to be swamped by Muslims that are going to change the fabric and essence of the community.
On the other hand, like you at the individual level I take every person as they come without too much prejudice. Or at least I try to. And think that’s the right thing to do.
And I agree not serving someone at an establishment because of their “type” seems profoundly wrong.
I don’t have too many answers to all this. But I am convinced that we have to talk about it with civility and to shut people up and make it taboo is a really bad idea.
Yes I would agree with that though as I have said before I do struggle a bit with the contradiction between believing in free association- a shopkeeper should be able to serve or not serve whoever he chooses, with the undesirability of arbitrary discrimination. That kind of thing is illegal but the Equalities Act seems to veer into the territory of micro policing human interaction.
I think it’s wrong for a shopkeeper to discriminate in that way. But I don’t think the state should do anything about it.
I think that ultimately plays out ok. In the end the shopkeeper ends up changing his ways or paying a price for his prejudice.
Quite likely yes
During “Covid” it might have been tricky to get served anywhere without wearing a mask though
Tell that to the Poles, like the Polish lady who was astonished to be given a large council house for herself and her family shortly after immigrating to Britain. She said,
“In Poland, Poles come first! Here in Britain, things are different.”
I don’t think Britain is an artefact.
It is the name of the big island we are on, commonly known as Great Britain to distinguishm it from its smaller companion, known as Ireland now not as Ptolemy referred to it, Little Britain.
The island might be called Britain by some. But you’ll surely agree it is used to refer to other things and so has other meanings?
“ “slightly ridiculous” since it would imply that even players in the England cricket team do not count.”
Sunak you pillock elite sports people everywhere adopt countries according to their convenience and the teams are happy to have them. It’s a meaningless circus.
It won’t be long before arithmetic starts off with alk,do,teen instead of one,two,three..
Urdu?
It’s difficult to define “Englishness”.
I was born in Eastern Europe.
I’m definitely not English and never will be either, even though I have spent more than half of my life in England.
My wife is 100% English.
I think our children our English too.
Ah, but can they sing all four (or is it five) verses of God Save The Quing?
Oh, there are six. When did that happen? Paging Heretic, how many were there in your day?!
“O Lord our God arise,
Scatter his enemies,
And make them fall.
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all”
No, it isn’t difficult at all. Ask your English wife.
The question is: at what point do you become English?
What qualifies you for Englishness?
Let’s say a French couple have a child who is born in England, brought up here and feels he belongs here more than anywhere else.
Who is to say he can’t be English?
What are my children? They were born here. They have no connection to any other country, other than through the fact that their father is not English. What are they?
I think the only answer is in the person’s psychology but that’s of course not measurable in an objective way.
So, yes, I think it can be complicated.
It does’t matter where your mother happened to be when you popped out into the world! It doesn’t matter WHERE YOU WERE BORN.
Your kids are half English and half “Somewhere in Eastern Europe” that you don’t want to say.
There’s nothing wrong with that. Surely you will teach them to be proud of BOTH of their ancestral lines.
Oh, I’m not ashamed of it, I just didn’t think it was relevant, but there you go: I was born in Hungary.
Like the Heroic Viktor Orban, the great Hungarian Patriot, valiantly fighting to prevent the extermination of his own Hungarian People by Mass Invasion from the Third World.
That is indeed something of which to be immensely proud, like the great Hungarian physician Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, the “Saviour of Mothers”.
And countless others, throughout your history, as I’m sure you will teach your children.
Thank you.
Whilst I don’t really like Orbán, I admire his determination to keep my country free of the joys of “vibrant multiculturalism”, such as Pakistani rape gangs, suicide bombers and Somalian drug lords, despite enormous pressure from the EU.
Noah Carl is deliberately confusing “CIVIC NATIONALISM” of passports and citizenship with “ETHNIC IDENTITY”, which every person on the planet has inherited from their ANCESTORS.
It’s really not complicated at all.
But notice how it’s always England and the English and the England flag that are specially targeted for destruction.
The important thing is that the Satanic Globalists want a “Borderless World” full of humans with NO ETHNIC IDENTITY or tribal roots, so they can be good little Global Slaves, “The Bronze Race” promoted by the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan, when Ethnic Europeans, now only 7% of the people on the planet, have been exterminated.
So let’s make as many borders as we can, starting with England declaring independence from the UK, EU, UN, WHO, Vatican, and every other international organization keen to abolish national borders.
Quite right!
I blame the schools.
English is an ethnic group – just as Celt or Pict – Angel + Saxon + Jute mix – “Angelcynn” meaning “English people” or “English race”, as described by Alfred the Great, King of Wessex (1871 – 1899 AD), and established in “Englaland” roughly between the 5th and 9th centuries AD.
Over time because of intermarriage it includes the aboriginal Brythonic Celt and from about 9th century, Viking Norse.
Nobody can be English without that bloodline, in the same way that an Englishman citizen of Nigeria cannot be a Negro, or citizen in the Asian cannot be a Indu, Bengali, Hindu, Tamil – but could be Indian.
British was a term for all those who were subjects of the King/Queen which meant in the Empire any National or ethnic group.
Don’t they teach the difference between geographic maps and political maps anymore in schools?
British is a political and citizenship designator, not an ethnic one.
Not only do they want to erase our culture, take our Country, destroy our national identity, but also rob us of our ethnicity and heritage.
Pitchfork and hemp time, methinks.
And what people don’t realize is that the government of India requires all foreigners to have a “CERIFICATE OF INDIAN ORIGIN” in order to work or settle there.
It means you must prove that you are an ETHNIC INDIAN, that your ancestors were ETHNIC INDIANS, in order to be accepted.
The Indians swarming into the West and screaming about “racism” and “discrimination” never mention this fact, and never talk about their own Racist Caste System.
They are the most Egregious Hypocrites. Ruthless Voracious Predators.
Oops. I of course meant King of Wessex 871 to 899AD.
King Alfred the Great, the only king here ever to bear that name “The Great”, for so he was.
I’m confused about your theory of the bloodline as obviously there was later intermarriage between the existing race and the Normans. I have my family tree back to 1066 and my name comes from a Norman invader who lived in a French village of the same name. I certainly consider myself English.
Interesting choice of picture to go with this article. As we are constantly reminded that immigrants built England, who built Stonehenge? Did they return to their third-world hell-hole, or did they stay on to gve us an early dose of the diversity that would become our greatest strength? Because, plainly, the Engish can’t build anything for themselves.
Am I English – my mother was, but my father was born in Dublin to Scottish parents. A friend of mine was born in Malta, because his father was in the RAF, is he English, he certainly competed for them in the Commonwealth Games, but his parents both came from the Caribbean. I support the Scottish rugby team, because I wanted to be contrary at my boarding school when everyone else supported England – a brave choice at the time. I am atheist, so does that prevent me from being English, because I don’t kowtow to the church and slightly resent the religious connection with the flag. Finally, I was born in Wiltshire, part of Wessex, which did and still does exist for some of us
You are evidently an ETHNIC EUROPEAN = “White Person”, a member of THE WORLD’S SMALLEST ETHNIC GROUP, now comprising only 7% of all the people on the planet.
Your ancestors were from two Ethnic European Tribes, the English Tribe and the Scottish Tribe. You are half English and half Scottish.
It’s not complicated.
If both parents of your friend born in Malta were Ethnic Africans from the Caribbean, then he is an Ethnic African, regardless of where he was born, or which sports teams he joined, or which passport he has.
It’s not complicated.
Interesting statement, ‘not complicated’. What is ethnic English? Lots in this thread keep talking about the Scots as though they compromise a single ethnicity. Actually, my name and Scottish ancestry suggests that I owe loyalty to the McDonalds, Lords of the Isles, which suggests Norse or Viking origins from the Hebrides and Western Highlands, so perhaps my Scottish ancestry has more in common with Norman French than Pictish Celtic peoples. Many Orcadians and Shetland islanders feel more affinity to Norway than Edinburgh.
I was born in London of WW2 refugee parents – always claimed to be British, never dared to claim English…and quite happy with that
Excellent. Everyone should be proud of their ancestors.
Since the Satanic Globalists want to wipe out Ethnic Identity across the planet, especially in Ethnic European = White countries, we should all celebrate and reinforce our Ethnic Identities, everywhere.
The reason that Rishi Sunak and I (a white man of mostly British ancestry) are both Englishmen is not simply that we both grew up in England. It is that we both grew up in English society, living the country’s way of life, and absorbing its culture, traditions and values. (Only I am ethnically English)
The problems arise when people grow up in insular, unintegrated communities which, whilst geographically within England, are outside of its society: microcosms of other countries’ societies and cultures.
As to defining Englishness, I think it’s like what Louis Armstrong said when asked to define swing: “Man, if you gotta ask you’ll never know”.
Of course people might question why Sushi – with his Indian billionheiress wife – has raised his daughters in Indian dress so that they look straight from Bombay or Calcutta?
I wrote the above in direct response to what Konstantin Kisin had said. He chose Sunak as an example, and made no reference to his family circumstances. Kisin argued that Sunak cannot be English solely because he is brown-skinned and Hindu. (I have the greatest respect for Konstantin, but happen to disagree with him on this specific issue)
Well, Konstantin is right to point out that Sunak cannot be an Englishman because he is not an Ethnic European = White. He is an Ethnic Indian, whose ancestral homeland is the vast Indian Subcontinent, regardless of his religion, since there are Indian Christians in India..
Ethnicity is really not complicated, though Leftists like Fraser Nelson try to make it so. It is my considered opinion that Fraser Nelson is an Obnoxious Git.
Yes, and why Sunak & his wife both obtained “Green Cards” to work in America, even while he is still an MP in the UK Parliament:
“Rishi Sunak has taken a job lecturing at a university in California, amid rumours he would like a full-time move back to the state.
The former Prime Minister – who is still MP for the Yorkshire constituency of Richmond and Northallerton – has taken up a visiting fellowship at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
He will also be joining Oxford University’s Blavatnik School of Government as a member of its World Leaders Circle.
Mr Sunak, who studied philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford (UK) before earning a master of business administration degree at Stanford (US) said he was “delighted” to be joining the two institutions.”
Sunak takes new part-time job in California
Codswallop!
Rishi Sunak is an Ethnic Indian Billionaire, with an Ethnic Indian Billionaire wife who is richer than King Charles III, and an Ethnic Indian Billionaire father-in-law who is one of the richest men on the planet. Sunak and his wife and kids also have kept their options open by obtaining “Green Cards” and employment in America, even while still holding the post of MP in the UK Parliament, like many of their fellow Ethnic Indians in the West, who have no specific loyalty to any country of the West. Just like Ethnic Africans from wealthy families, who wedge their feet in the doors of several Western countries to keep their options open.
No one can be a “cultural Englishman”, or a “cultural Irishman”, or a “cultural Japanese”. The whole idea is nonsense.
Being an Englishman means being an Ethnic European= White Person whose ancestors were part of the Ethnic English Tribe, which you are. Sunak is not, nor ever will be. Nor should he even want to.
Your arguments are entirely ad hominem, derived from the specific details of Sunak’s biography (whick KK never referenced). What if he had never gone into banking or politics but remained in Southampton, taken over the running of his mother’s pharmacy, and married the white girl next door? Would that have made him English?
That he is not ethnically English goes without saying. What I object to is the implication that one can never be “truly” English (or Welsh, French, etc) if the colour of ones skin differs from that of the indigenous population. And what of those who have lost all cultural connections to their ancestral homeland? Are they doomed to perpetual limbo?
What interests me is the handing down of culture and in language from one generation to another. If you don’t have sets of grandparents who were born and brought up in this country you would not inherit many nuanced sayings and mannerisms that can only be passed down within families. Also, for example my parents were both deeply affected by both wars as my mother lost her father due to poison gas from WW1 and her first husband shot down in RAF. Nothing uncommon really but when Remembrance Day comes there’s much for me to explain to one of my grandsons who is interested in history. I often use many expressions I was brought up with like “ don’t count your chickens” or blood’s thicker than water”…… they love hearing his stuff. What does Rishi Sunak know of these? I’ve visited my ancestors’ graves in many churchyards and seen their names on the plaques in churches where they were vicars. Does this mean nothing? I guess I’m saying there are grades of belonging to a country.
I live in England but am Welsh. I would not claim to be English but have English ancestry. Prince Phillip was Colonel-in-Chief of my old Corps but was known to all ranks as “Phil the Greek”. Not relevant but there is more to it than residence and a passport.
Biology v. Politics – it’s not complicated. Genes say one thing; man made bits of paper say one thing. They may or may not overlap.
Friend of mine got this seems we have no legal status as separate nations.
“Received a reply from BBC on my ICO complaint regarding ‘English’ nationality.
So we have no legal status as English.
It is as expected. Demonstrates the intention to wipe English nationality.”
PS “The British” are the Deep State they are destroying England as a country and intend to split Britain into Globalist regions starting with mayoral regions London, Birmingham, West Yorkshire etc.. They have their eyes on Plymouth want to make it into a city of 500,000 with a mayor. People there don’t want their villages gobbled up. RESIST, DEFY, DO NOT COMPLY!