Talk:Romano-British culture

Could we rename this Romano-British culture? As it stands, we have two adjectives without a noun. -- Zoe

I thought about this when I first saw this entry. I don't know if I would agree to this wholesale change because (1) we need an entry that defines just what Romano-British means (e.g., a catchall for people who can be considered British during the period Roman influence was significant -- both inhabitants of the island of Britain, as well as of Brittany; and (2) we need an entry that narrates the history of the province(s) of Britain.

If I achieve my plan of writing the necessary entries, maybe we can reduce this entry to a single paragraph with a thoughtful set of links. -- llywrch

The term Romano-British is a genuinely accepted term so I'm not so how it could be renamed. I am uncomfortable with the line that many Romano-British left Britain. A large scale migration (to Brittany) has never been proven and is highly discounted, and I don't know where the idea came that some migrated 'possibly' to Ireland and northern Spain. This seems entirely fabricated because it fits into someone's idea of the extent of Celtic cultural influence. -- Enzedbrit

Is there a Romano-British people group, or is it simply considered a culture? --70.114.235.205 22:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The culture still exists, yes. It's alive and well in Wales & Brittany - Cornwall is attempting to revive its Romano-British culture via the Kernewek language. If a 'people' can be defined by their language, the Welsh & Bretons by virtue of their languages can be considered such Romano-British people, certainly. Homoproteus (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

where?

wondering where to find the stuff on real life 'arthurian' britain, e.g. maps of kingdoms in that period. i dont think its sub roman or whatever, where is it? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdone (talk • contribs) at 15:56, 12 June 2007

Moved from "Romano-British" to "Romano-British culture"

The move was suggested above. I went ahead and made it, and fixed double redirects, for some consistency with Gallo-Roman culture and Romano-German culture. (I'm still not sure what this article has that Brittania and Roman Britain don't. But there are a lot of links here.) -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Six centuries of being pushed to the fringes of Britain

However, the Germanic tribes began to overthrow their hosts, pushing Romano-British culture, over the next six centuries, to the western fringes of the island in Wales, Devon, Somerset, Dorset and Cornwall and to the north in Strathclyde, Rheged and Elmet. Some of the Romano-British may have migrated to Brittany and possibly Ireland.

Let's have some citation PLEASE! Somerset and Dorset? That's a new one and sounds quite fanciful. This of course is lending itself to the 'Celtic Wipeout' theory which has now been largely disproved. Many of the Romano-British stayed in place and were merely absorbed into Anglo-Saxon culture. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the first of the two sentences. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Celtic Wipeout" theory has NOT been 'largely disproved' there are merely contrary theories which attempt to disprove it. There is no consensus - it would be wrong to suggest that there is. Homoproteus (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-English attitudes

How many times have the English been denied their place in Roman Britain, by the Welsh who think that it belongs to them alone? If you have something to say, go ahead and say it. Don't mince words. I know you called my edits in "good faith", but the systemic bias is usually totally against the English. I will change the title of the section, because it may be politically charged.

If you have amendments with supporting citations please suggest them here and I am sure everyone will be open. Edit warring and assertions such as above are not appropriate. --Snowded TALK 18:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw your userpage and it explains your position here, by taking a fellow Welshman's side and denying what you would not deny if it was wholly Welsh propaganda, for there would not be any calls for "supporting citations". You are apt to take this very personal, considering your political positions. You are quite possibly, an extreme anglophobe. Oh right, that's acceptable. How could I forget that devolution is the new manifest destiny? Hold the English in contempt. Fine by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me... I may live in Wales now, but I was born in England and lived there most of my life. No-one is ganging up on you. Your thoughts are interesting, but that is of zero relevance to what makes an acceptable encyclopedia article here. If you provide good valid references for your edits, and do not edit war or abuse other editors, and if there is a consensus that your edits are worthwhile, no doubt some of what you have written can be incorporated in the article. But first I suggest you read this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I put up a new template and await helpful editing. I do not intend to retract the material, or relegate it to talkpage. It's not OR, however it is an original POV (hmm, NPOV is original?) on the same research found throughout widely accepted and conventional sources, whether here on Wikipedia or elsewhere. There is too much Labour spawn here on Wikipedia about devolutionism and antipathy between the various Britons, whilst the Spanish regions are likewise a cesspool of division and strife between competing peoples. My aim here was to present a holistic and inclusivist opinion on the material, which is otherwise used on Wikipedia to make a case for the disunion of Britons. It really is a matter of POV. I consider it more or less NPOV, to find room for all concerned parties, rather than shun one and put another on a pedestal. The only thing I was trying to do, for real, was explore the missing link between Roman Britain and England and Wales. At present, the Welsh try to hog all of this legacy for themselves, but this is an obvious error, due to the fact that the English long observed the same legends and origin myth that the Welsh value. It is then worthwhile, to see how these two peoples fit in the same situation, not choosing one party over the other. I am very much aware of the anglophobic negationism on any and all articles in which the "Celts" are discussed, much as the "Celts" are "upset to be confused with the English". I do not intend to take a side. My philosophy is to include the "Celts" in matters which the English find themselves and include the English in reciprocal situations where the "Celts" are the focus. The whole aggression towards a divorce of the "Anglo-Celtic" peoples is rather suspect, IMHO. I originally had a much larger version of this material on the article Romano-Germanic culture, but retracted it due to dismay that the English are being made to be an anomaly that don't fit in either worldview of extremists. I realised that the only place in terms of Roman culture the English have a relation to, is Romano-British, for that is their heritage. Englishness is not Romano-Germanic, for that is a Continental issue for people of the Rhineland. Whether or not the English are related to the same phenomena of the rest of the Western Romans, has no bearing on the specific Roman nature of the English. The English could only have any connection to the rest of what changed Western Rome, through their roots in Britain. Even the Saxon Shore in what's present day Normandy was located on the Oceanus Britannicus. Thus, it is obvious that the English nation owes its origins to the same legacy as the Welsh, as Dark Ages formations out of the ruins of Roman Britain. Please, I hope there is no more skewed nativism here that seeks to make the English foreign, whether by the "Celts" or by those self-deluded Germanophiles of Nazi tradition. We were all Britons during the Blitz. Please respect that.

I removed my text which seems more editorial and possibly irrelevant:

There is in essence, no way in which the English character can be described or function as some "black and white" matter of one ("Anglo-Saxon") to the exclusion of the other ("Romano-British") and still be recognisable as English, for Englishness is still a symbiosis or synthesis which the Holy Roman Empire even did not become. England was formed within Britain and not elsewhere, even if various disparate components of a Continental nature are held to be contributive to its foundations, but this makes the English no more or less British than their blood brothers in the rest of the British Isles, considering their origin stories. The very fact that the English nation was born in the most Roman part of Britain, attests to continuity between the English and Romans, rather than Romans and Welsh, although collectively, England and Wales are what remains today of Roman Britain. Most of the differences stem from linguistics and mythologies, as well as the protagonist or antagonist in differing perspectives on the same stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Objections

If anybody has an objection to my text, please specify what you think needs correction. Please do not simply dispose of my good faith edits.

IP, you've (to say the least) mangled Wikipedia's 3RR rule. STOP with the disrutpive behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)