Englishman marrying a scottish girl!

[CPOBull@Comcast.net]

a chara
My very good fellow
Do not let the wearing of a tartan put you off in the least
According to recent rulings, on the subject of clan tartans, have been loosened considerably, in that one may wear a tartan of a particular clan and "not" be in the least way offensive, as long as the wearer is respectful to that clan, and supports its traditions, and history. Only the most obdurate and miserable of fellows would object or try to make you feel uncomfortable or unwanted; those doing so have bad manners anyway and are not in the least worthy of your care.
I would say, in a general vein that if you wore "Scottish National", you would find that most people encountering would be pleased by that.
You're English so what, you're still "British", one of the seven nations: Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish,British, Wightish, and Galician [can anybody say Portugal here?] so we're all Celts at heart.
Congratulations, good luck, and God bless

from "Amerikay"
slainte
Anchor'sAway/SemperFi
CPO Bull

[Philip S. Tibbetts]

That picture is not slanted . . . what bar keep? no, no more single malt I'm driving.

Lol!

However yes that picture was slightly askew but it was the first photo I could find. Sorry for making anyone think that they were drunk & in control of a keyboard - bad things can happen.

Here's a slightly better picture


and there's another similar one simply called Europe


Here's also a better picture of the St George (English) tartan


You may be able to tell but I'm rather a fan of district tartans

[CPOBull@Comcast.net]

Thinking, just
She is not only marrying into "your" family; You are "marrying" into Her family.
What better sign of respect than to wear the tartan of "her" people; it would be
"beau geste" [the beautiful gesture] in the best of senses.
Just a thought here
We're Irish here, but when our son was married our daughter-in-law to be had a beautiful tartan shawl from each of our clans [O'Caoimh and Duffy {Australia}] as part of the train of her wedding veil, and when vows were exchanged before they processed back down ther aisle both endings were rove into a bow trailing, showing the interweaving of both clans.
Scot/Irish/British "still Celt"

slainte
from "Amerikay"
Anchor'sAway/SemperFi
CPO Bull

[thanmuwa]

Wear the kilt, it will make for a memorable day. Choose it with your wife-to-be along with the excellent advice and lovely tartans on this thread. I cannot recommend getting married kilted enough.

a chara
You're English so what, you're still "British", one of the seven nations: Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish,British, Wightish, and Galician [can anybody say Portugal here?] so we're all Celts at heart.

Mo chara,

Isle of Man (ie Manx) not the Isle of Wight.
Breton (from Brittany in France), not British.
The Anglo-Saxons (English) weren't Celts.

[Philip S. Tibbetts]

Wear the kilt, it will make for a memorable day. Choose it with your wife-to-be along with the excellent advice and lovely tartans on this thread. I cannot recommend getting married kilted enough.



Mo chara,

Isle of Man (ie Manx) not the Isle of Wight.
Breton (from Brittany in France), not British.
The Anglo-Saxons (English) weren't Celts.

At the risk of repeating what myself and thanmuwa have already discussed I would say that there is an awful lot of confusion even in academia about nationalities.

True Anglo-saxons weren't Celts but then again there is pretty strong evidence to show that the Insular Celts (those on the British Isles) were only Celts because of cultural and linguistic transfer rather than genetic and land takeover. Europe and these Isles are very much mongrel (as proved by genetic studies) with the England area having as many genetic traits from pre-Saxon period people as elsewhere. Bloodlines and cultures blend - mongrel and proud of it

As such I really admire your open-mindness with you trying to blend your own identity with that of your soon-to-be-wife by wanting to wear the kilt at your wedding (which has lovely symbolism both personally and wider culturally/historically). Whichever tartan you choose it's a lovely touch

[Colonel MacNeal]

Darroch would be a MacDonald of Sleat, or a MacDonald of the Isles, or maybe even a MacKintosh, depending on your allegiances.

[slohairt]

At the risk of repeating what myself and thanmuwa have already discussed I would say that there is an awful lot of confusion even in academia about nationalities.

True Anglo-saxons weren't Celts but then again there is pretty strong evidence to show that the Insular Celts (those on the British Isles) were only Celts because of cultural and linguistic transfer rather than genetic and land takeover. Europe and these Isles are very much mongrel (as proved by genetic studies) with the England area having as many genetic traits from pre-Saxon period people as elsewhere. Bloodlines and cultures blend - mongrel and proud of it

As such I really admire your open-mindness with you trying to blend your own identity with that of your soon-to-be-wife by wanting to wear the kilt at your wedding (which has lovely symbolism both personally and wider culturally/historically). Whichever tartan you choose it's a lovely touch

True, but this is why 'Celtic' is considered an ethno-linguistic group. Genetics meant nothing to these ancient people and should mean even less to us. It is accurate to say that the Anglo-Saxon culture and language were (and are) not Celtic.

Anyway, wearing the traditional dress of fiancée's culture is certainly one of the highest compliments you could pay her. Enjoy wearing the kilt for your wedding and hopefully on many other occasions as well.

[Rob]

The Anglo-Saxons (English) weren't Celts.

Genetic studies show that the vast majority of English people (about 95%) were not descended from the Anglo-Saxon invaders/settlers of the 5th/6th centuries, so to label the English as being Anglo-Saxons is inaccurate. Most of the English of today were descendents of the post-Ice Age migrants from Northern Iberia, just as the Welsh, Scots and Irish were. Their ancestors spoke a Celtic language just as the ancestors of the Welsh, Scots and Irish did, so if the definition of a 'Celt' is someone who speaks (or whose ancestors spoke) a Celtic language, then the English are just as much Celts as the Scots are.

[Philip S. Tibbetts]

Genetic studies show that the vast majority of English people (about 95%) were not descended from the Anglo-Saxon invaders/settlers of the 5th/6th centuries, so to label the English as being Anglo-Saxons is inaccurate. Most of the English of today were descendents of the post-Ice Age migrants from Northern Iberia, just as the Welsh, Scots and Irish were. Their ancestors spoke a Celtic language just as the ancestors of the Welsh, Scots and Irish did, so if the definition of a 'Celt' is someone who speaks (or whose ancestors spoke) a Celtic language, then the English are just as much Celts as the Scots are.

You've made a wonderful point there!

If nationality is dependant on language you either have to speak the language to be that nationality or have come from a place where it was once spoken. Either of those definitions has big holes in it. The former description would entail that you can only be Welsh, for example, if you spoke Welsh. The second example means that just by being in the region you could say youre Welsh but you could add in many other things (like English, French & Latin cause they were spoken in that region). Secondly how to you identify which region is valid - they speak Romanian in some part of the EU, I'm European so does that mean I can say I'm Romanian too?

It's already been shown that nationality doesn't really depend on blood either, blood mixes nearly as easily as culture. Indeed the funny thing is that Celts as a ethnic group didn't really come across to Britain & Ireland.

It can't be based on land either cause you're simply describing where certain people lived, and that's more a descriptor of people than land cause people move all over the place. The moving border over time between England and Scotland is a fine example of how little meaning taking your identity from which territory a group of people once owned is.

Culture itself blends and changes and it's extraordinarily difficult to make cultures exclusive of other cultures. That's cause culture is just customs and ideas and they spread as memes through societies just through communication and information.

I do believe that the idea of nationality is a useful way of describing heritage but people generally put far too much stock in it and use it as a way of identifying themselves. Nationalities in the past have just been used as political rallying tools without much bearing on the truth hidden in the history, cause when you do look at the roots of it all you find nationalities to be far more nebulous and abstract than many people believe.

As such I will happily admit to having certain heritages which helped to influence me and my surroundings but what I do and where I physically am dictate my actual identity. That's why I like the OP for blending cultures and perceptions

Sorry rant over!

[thanmuwa]

Genetic studies show that the vast majority of English people (about 95%) were not descended from the Anglo-Saxon invaders/settlers of the 5th/6th centuries, so to label the English as being Anglo-Saxons is inaccurate.

Which genetic studies are those? I doubt very much that 95% of English people are indigenes and studies such as http://class.csueastbay.edu/anthropo.../Weale2002.pdf and this http://class.csueastbay.edu/anthropo...pf20005%20.pdf show something quite different. Although I do agree that the Victorian concept of complete population replacement is patently not true either. Plus, the implications of the genetic results are not as clear as they appear.

For example, someone could have 7 out of 8 great-grandparents who were Vikings and one Irish. That person could easily have inherited a single genetic trait that was being tested for that would show him as Irish when the vast majority of his DNA, and probably his language and identity, was Viking. So the genetic studies are not that straightforward. And that is assuming that that particular trait is 100% prevalent in one population and 0% in another.

There are visible signs of genetic variation in Britain though. Blonde hair is much more common in Hampshire and red hair is far more common in Oban. The red-head in Oban may even speak Gaelic making him a Celt!

Most of the English of today were descendents of the post-Ice Age migrants from Northern Iberia, just as the Welsh, Scots and Irish were. Their ancestors spoke a Celtic language just as the ancestors of the Welsh, Scots and Irish did, so if the definition of a 'Celt' is someone who speaks (or whose ancestors spoke) a Celtic language, then the English are just as much Celts as the Scots are.

I don't think you can stretch the definition of Celt back the requisite 1500 years to make the English Celts . Let me make the meaning of what I initially said clearer. The English who have the most Anglo-Saxon cultural influence, predominantly in the south, could not except by the wildest stretches of the imagination, be considered Celts, which is a language and culture based grouping...