| Author |
Message
|
| Holmes |
 Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:34 pm Post subject: who were the normans? |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 44
|
| are the normans still in uk? are they hated by brits? i think i may be part norman among other uk tribes form there welsh etc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 792
|
The UK Royal Family can indeed trace their ancestry back to William the Conqueror. 
_________________
A problem worthy of attack
Proves its worth by fighting back.
(Piet Hein)
Did You Know?
Fact of the day: Homotopy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2398
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
| JaneBennet wrote: |
| The UK Royal Family can indeed trace their ancestry back to William the Conqueror. |
i doubt that very much - the current house of windsor comes from hannover, not normandy
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 792
|
| marnixR wrote: |
| JaneBennet wrote: |
| The UK Royal Family can indeed trace their ancestry back to William the Conqueror. |
i doubt that very much - the current house of windsor comes from hannover, not normandy |
The first Hanoverian king of England, George I, was a descendant of James I of England (VI of Scotland)*, who was himself descended from Henry VII and Elizabeth of York through Margaret Tudor (grandmother of Mary Queen of Scots).
*George I was the son of Ernest Augustus, Elector of Hanover, and Sophia, daughter of Frederick V, Elector Palatine of the Rhine, and Elizabeth of Bohemia. Elizabeth of Bohemia was the daughter of James I.
_________________
A problem worthy of attack
Proves its worth by fighting back.
(Piet Hein)
Did You Know?
Fact of the day: Homotopy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 974
Location: London
|
| JaneBennet wrote: |
| marnixR wrote: |
| JaneBennet wrote: |
| The UK Royal Family can indeed trace their ancestry back to William the Conqueror. |
i doubt that very much - the current house of windsor comes from hannover, not normandy |
The first Hanoverian king of England, George I, was a descendant of James I of England (VI of Scotland)*, who was himself descended from Henry VII and Elizabeth of York through Margaret Tudor (grandmother of Mary Queen of Scots).
*George I was the son of Ernest Augustus, Elector of Hanover, and Sophia, daughter of Frederick V, Elector Palatine of the Rhine, and Elizabeth of Bohemia. Elizabeth of Bohemia was the daughter of James I. |
The Queen can also, I suspect, trace her ancestry back to Genghis Khan.
In any case the Normans (called that because their ancestors were Norsemen, not French) reasonably quickly integrated with (partly through dominating) the local 'Anglo-Saxon' population, and they're as much part of the English gene pool (and probably Scottish, Welsh and Irish though I'd get shot for suggesting that) as the Anglo-Saxons and so on.
So the OP has kind of got it wrong - the Normans are brits, and there is no question of them being hated by them: there's no 'them' there!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 792
|
Here’s the complete genealogy.
James I of England & VI of Scotland was the son of Mary Queen of Scots, who was the daughter of James V of Scotland, who was the son of Margaret Tudor, who was the daughter of Henry VII & Elizabeth of York. Elizabeth of York was the daughter of Edward IV of England, who was the son of Richard 3rd Duke of York, who was the son of Richard 3rd Earl of Cambridge, who was the son of Edmund of Langley, who was the son of Edward III. Now the timeline of the English monarchy becomes much more straightforward: Edward III was the son of Edward II, who was the son of Edward I, who was the son of Henry III, who was the son of King John, who was the son of Henry II, who was the son of Geoffrey of Anjou & Empress Matilda. The latter was the daughter of Henry I – who, as you probably know, was the son of William the Conqueror.
I already mentioned above how George I was related (via his mother’s mother) to James I. Now let’s go forward from here. George I was the father of George II, who was the father of Frederick Prince of Wales, who was the father of George III, who was the father of George IV, William IV and Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent and Strathearn. Edward Augustus was the father of Queen Victoria, who was the mother of Edward VII, who was the father of George V, who was the father of Edward VIII and George VI. And George VI, as you should know, was the father of Elizabeth II.
I hope all this isn’t too complicated. As a mathematician, I like to present my arguments in the form of a step-by-step proof. 
_________________
A problem worthy of attack
Proves its worth by fighting back.
(Piet Hein)
Did You Know?
Fact of the day: Homotopy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 974
Location: London
|
| JaneBennet wrote: |
I hope all this isn’t too complicated. As a mathematician, I like to present my arguments in the form of a step-by-step proof. |
Indeed. And to avoid the fallacy of assuming that the patrilineal line is somehow more 'true': a gene is a gene is a gene, no matter whom it came from. Unfortunately the way in which primogeniture works within our monarchy, a lot of people tend to forget that. All the European royal families are related to each other and you can, therefore, if you lok up enough family trees, trace almost any of them back to William the Conqueror. Hence my mention of Genghis Khan - within the last 700 years, given that he had a number of children, it is almost certain that most Europeans today (including Lilibet and her brood) have some of his genes.
It was also the reason why I suggested the OP stated an ill-founded question - there is no distinction between the Normans and the Brits... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pendragon |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1160
Location: Nederland
|
I think the question of Normans being hated in England was quite relevant in the early middle ages, but probably not today The Normans took over England from the Saxons, who were a quite distinct people back then. They oppressed the Saxons for a long time and must've caused quite some bad blood, but that's ancient history.
Around the same time the Hollandic people pushed back the Frysian people in the Netherlands and started their domination of the country. My grandfather is a Frysian, but he doesn't have any grudges at the evil Hollanders |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Holmes |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 44
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans
Characteristics
In a famous passage, Geoffrey Malaterra characterised the Normans thus:
Specially marked by cunning, despising their own inheritance in the hope of winning a greater, eager after both gain and dominion, given to imitation of all kinds, holding a certain mean between lavishness and greediness, that is, perhaps uniting, as they certainly did, these two seemingly opposite qualities. Their chief men were specially lavish through their desire of good report. They were, moreover, a race skillful in flattery, given to the study of eloquence, so that the very boys were orators, a race altogether unbridled unless held firmly down by the yoke of justice. They were enduring of toil, hunger, and cold whenever fortune laid it on them, given to hunting and hawking, delighting in the pleasure of horses, and of all the weapons and garb of war."[1]
Their quick adaptability expressed itself in the shrewd Norman willingness to take on local men of talent, to marry the high-born local women; confidently illiterate Norman masters used the literate clerks of the church for their own purposes.
[edit] Normandy
sounds like me and us americans
lol
i thinkmy ggg grandfather came in 1700 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 378
|
"are the normans still in uk?"
I had similar questions long ago about ancient civilizations
I came to the conclusions that the names used are "labels" that are quite practical but that also oversimplify reality, "black vs white" "living vs inert" "British" "Assyrians". When we forget that these are labels we use to talk about a certain aspect of reality as a common reference for simplicity's sake and that they are not an actual reality by themselves it can be confusing.
The Norman people continue to exist thru their decendants but the 'label' norman no longer applies. If you look at the english language you will find its a melting pot of words and concepts of various origins, germanic, roman, french, arab, etc.
The same applies to "life", its a label, if you dont realize the extent to which its a label its much harder to understand the origin of life. We dont have labels for the vast range (shades of grey) of molecular activity that spans the gap between inert(Black) and life(white). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
