Who were in U.K before whom? Celts, Saxons, Muslims, Jews, Protestants, ,Scotch, Scandinavians, or others?
970462
There were people in Britain long before the Celts came across, which I think was around 500 BC, but we don't know much about them, like what language they spoke. In fact people have been in Briatin continuousy for thousands of years.\n\nWhen the Romans came, they found people speaking a language similar to Welsh, and also similar to Gaulish spoken in France and Belgium. Many of the Celtic tribes still had connections with their cousins on the European mainland. In the North of Scotland were the Picts, who may have spoken a Celtic language - no-one knows for sure.\n\nThe Romans came and went, even though they were here for four hundred years it doesn't seem that they left many descendants in Britain. It was always a bit of an outpost of the Roman Empire, cold, remote, unattractive to settlers.\n\nThen betwen about 450-600 AD, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians came from Holland, Northern Germany, and Denmark; they fought many wars with the (Welsh) Britons, overwhelming them. It seems that they were largely ethnically cleansed from most of England - many refugees went to France, to the area that came to be known as Little Britain, now Brittany. But Wales remained Welsh speaking, while Scotland was invaded by the Scots, an Irish tribe.\n\nLater, from around 800 AD, the Danes and Vikings came from Scandinavia. Originally they were just raiders, but they ended up settling much of Northern England.\n\nOf course, in 1066 we had the Normans coming from Northern France. They took their name from "Northmen", as Normandy had been conquered by Vikings previously, but they spoke a French dialect, and were probably descended more from Gauls and Romans than from Scandinavians.\n\nThankfully, that was the last serious invasion of Britain. Since then, there has been constant interchange of people with nearby countries, and those countries too with all their neighbours, so it is nothing surprising to find a little Mongol blood dating from their incursion into Europe, for example.\n\nWe had a large number of Protestant refugees from France - the Huguenots - in around 1680 - check \n\nhttp://www.huguenotsociety.org.uk/history/\n\nJews had also been present for hundreds of years, before they were expelled in 1290 - they were allowed back by Cromwell in about 1650. There were Italian merchants, and even Blacks were present in Shakespeare's time. More Blacks arrived as servants and freemen as Britain's Empire began to grow.\n\nMany Jews arrived from Eastern Europe from about 1880; there were also communities of Yemenis and Chinese, that originally arrived as seamen. In the 1930s we had Jewish refugees from Germany, and Basque refugees from Spain.\n\nDuring the Second World War, a large number of Poles came to fight against the Germans, and couldn't go back after because they couldn't accept the Communist regime. \n\nBecause of labour shortages, the British government recruited Italians and West Indians to work here; then people came from India, Pakistan and Bangla Desh. And since then, as the world has become a smaller and smaller place, people have come from all parts of the world, just as people have gone from here to all over.\n\nThere's nothing new about immigration, and nothing new about people's fears and hostility. But each wave of migrants gets absorbed into the population.
421879
I guess there are ignorant fools out there. It's the same way ppl think West Indians are from India (which btw incase anyone reading this didn't know, Indian did migrate to West Indie, so they have Indian roots, but West Indians have a culture of their own) I take an offense when ppl get this mixed up, so it's not surprising you'd take offense to ppl thinking Scotland isn't a place on its own. I've been to Scotland, it's awesome, I love the castles, the fast food potato at the mall and ofcourse the beauty of the place. Anyways good luck getting your msg out.
202106
Probably Scottish, but there could also be a French or Dutch connection.  Check out these websites.  I hope this helps.
693672
Yes, there's quite a lot of us from the UK, although we don't all still LIVE there, some of us are in other countries now!\n\nThe UK link at the bottom is a bit of a waste of time ... the questions are still the same .com ones!!!\n\nAnyway, lots of people ask questions like "For Brits only - what does this mean ...??" so just go ahead and post those Qs!!
882256
Anglo Saxons are a Germanic people, whilst Slavics are a Russian, Serbo-Croatian and Polish people.
705214
I'd have to say the UK.  It is understandable too, UKers have had a much longer relationship with dealing with the mid east, UK social laws and welfare practices as well as a long held "open door" policy to Asians that served the crown have caused so long-standing grudges against Muslims.  Then there is the other side that Muslims routinely fail to assimilate into UK society once they are in their new country and active political/social attempts from Muslims to force Brits to change and enact special laws for them.\n\nHere in America you'll find small pockets of Muslims, but they are, on the whole, well uneducated and well adapted to our society.\nThat's not to say there are not problems, but in reference to your question.  UK is definitely more defensive against Muslims.
236502
Mostly D in Britain anyway.  The British Isles were almost entirely covered in trees.  Unfortunately they were chopped down by the anglo-saxons who took over after the Roman Empire withdrew from that part of the world.\n\nAsian countries were isolated until about two hundred years ago.  There is not much we know about asia from that time.  The Asia referred to on old texts was actually Asia-minor which is now known as turkey.  It was not until the 1400's that the western world had much contact with Asia (other than the middle east) and it was mostly western Asian countries such as India.
6848
English originated from the Old Saxon language and related dialects brought to Britain by Germanic settlers from various parts of northwest Germany. The original Old English language was subsequently influenced by two successive waves of invasion. The first was by speakers of languages in the Scandinavian branch of the Germanic family, who colonised parts of Britain in the 8th and 9th centuries. The second wave was of the Normans in the 11th century, who spoke a variety of French.
263174
I just want to correct the previous answer. Britons were not a Germanic tribe. The name refers to speakers of a group of Celtic languages called Brythonic. Britons were Celts. Towads the end of the Roman occupation there were settlements (invasions ) of germanic Peoples  Angles, Saxons, and Jutes that settled what is now England pushing the Britons (Celts) into Wales, Cornwall,  and Scotland.
219951
Calyborri\n\nCalyborri Ine Kneale was my ancestress from Mallenhowne, Isle of Man.\n\nAlwara, Alvarissa, Lucia, Alice, Helwise, Bridget, Ada, etc. are all other names from that time period in my family tree.\n\nIf you want Norse/Viking names, I have a BUNCH of those too!
1068389
Pre-Reformation\nAnglicans traditionally date their movement back to the origins of the English Church, specifically the consecration of the first Archbishop of Canterbury, Saint Augustine of Canterbury in the sixth century CE. However, the origins of the English Church extend farther back, having first gained a foothoold during the Roman occupation prior to the fifth century. The first recorded Christian martyr in Britain, Saint Alban, is thought to have lived in the early fourth century, and his prominence in Anglican hagiography is reflected in the number of parish churches of which he is patron. Irish Anglicans also trace their origins back to the founding saint of Irish Christianity (Saint Patrick) who was a Roman Briton and pre-dated Anglo-Saxon Christianity.\n\nAnglicans consider Celtic Christianity a foreunner of their church, since the re-establishment of Christianity in the early sixth century came via Irish and Scottish missionaries, notably Saint Patrick and Saint Columba[2]. This distinctive form of Catholic Christianity remained, even after the Synod of Whitby in 664 decided that the church throughout Britain should conform to the contemporary Roman customs introduced by Augustine and other missionaries to the Anglo-Saxons. This persistence of Celtic traditions, along with the implementation of Pope Gregory I's instructions to Augustine to incorporate pagan customs and festivals into religious life and practice, meant that English Christianity assumed a distinctive indigenous character [3]\n\n[edit]\nReformation\nPart of the series on\nAnglicanism \n \nAnglican Communion \nBackground\nChristianity\nProtestant Reformation\nApostolic Succession\nRoman Catholicism\nEpiscopal structure\n\n \nPeople\nThomas Cranmer\nHenry VIII\nRichard Hooker\nElizabeth I\n\n \n"Instruments of Unity"\nArchbishop of Canterbury\nLambeth Conferences\nAnglican Consultative Council\nPrimates' Meeting\n\n \nLiturgy and Worship\nBook of Common Prayer\nHigh Church · Low Church\nBroad Church\nOxford Movement\nThirty-Nine Articles\nSaints in Anglicanism\n\n \nMain article: English Reformation \nWhile Anglicans acknowledge that the schism from papal authority under Henry VIII of England led to the Church of England existing as separate entity, they also stress its continuity with the pre-Reformation Church of England. Quite apart from its distinct customs and liturgies (such as the Sarum rite), the organizational machinery of the Church of England was in place by the time of the Synod of Hertford in 672–673 CE when the English bishops were for the first time able to act as one body under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The effect of Henry's Act in Restraint of Appeals (1533) and the Acts of Supremacy (1534) was simply to declare that the English crown was "the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Ecclesia Anglicana," and that the Bishop of Rome had no "greater jurisdiction in England than any other foreign bishop." The development of the Thirty-Nine Articles of religion and the passage of the Acts of Uniformity culminating in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement resulted in a Church that is both Catholic and Reformed with the English (later British) monarch as its Supreme Governor.\n\nThe English Reformation was initially driven by the dynastic goals of Henry VIII, who, in his quest for a consort who would bear him a male heir, found it expedient to replace papal supremacy with the supremacy of the English crown. A close reading of the early legislation, limiting itself as it does to questions of temporal and spiritual supremacy, suggest that it was not Henry's intention to found a new church. He was well-informed enough about history to know that the powers he was claiming were those which had been exercised by European monarchs over the church in their dominions since the time of Constantine the Great, and that what had changed since then had been the growt
748754
began in England in the 17th century by people who were dissatisfied with the existing denominations and sects of Christianity
1158301
According to the 2001 Census, 2.7% of the United Kingdom's population identifies themselves as Muslim. This corresponds to 1.59 million people. In comparison there are 42 million Christians, 559 thousand Hindus, 336 thousand Sikhs, 267 thousand Jews, and  152 thousand Buddhists. About 1/4 of the Census respondents chose not to state their religion or chose no religion (this also includes those who chose Jedi)
639677
Check out the History of the UK.
595366
Neither.  There are a number of different American dialects and a number of different British dialects.  Moreover, in some ways, (standard) American English is more "conservative" (has changed less from older forms of the language) than (standard--RP) British English.  Also, it wasn't the *British* who spread the language throughout the world; it was the *English*.  The Welsh and Scots (and Irish if you mean "British Isles" rather than "Great Britain") only started speaking English (rather than their original Celtic languages) under rule by England.
629704
"Anglo-Saxon" refers to a type of people. The mix of the Angles and the Saxons in England around the time of the middle ages which occured when they pushed the Celts out into Wales and Scotland.
54074
It's a long list:\nEgyptians\nAssyrians\nBabylonians\nPersians\nRomans\nRoman Catholic leaders in Spain(inquisition)\nRussians  (early 20th century)\nHitler's regime\n\nsome of these were only because they were jews and in the earlier circumstances they were just "in the way" of conquering nations so to speak.