The English with other Germanic tribes came to Britain over 1500 years ago. The streams of Teutonic influence decided the future of Europe.
With so much comment recently of the Germanic influence in Europe and its different effect in England and in the knowledge that up to the early years of the 20th century the people of England were on most friendly relations with the German States and it has taken two World Wars in the 20th century with Germany the Aggressor to change the friendly relations of the past with much caution in the future.
Today as we are all aware Germany with France are and have always been the engine of the European Union. There joint plan is to dominate Europe of which they make no secret of their intentions as the latest developments taking place within the EU even though the voters in France and Holland said NO! to the NEW CONSTITUTION of the
UNITED STATES OF EUROPE.
Ironically it had been France who had been our natural enemy for much of our history as was Scotland for many a year that it has often been said that Scotland was a thorn in our side and we were a thorn in the side of France or something along those lines.
The early years of the settlement of the English people in a land to be England produced in the manner of the conquest a different outcome in the future history of the world to the different Teutonic streams of conquest beyond our moated home, and in consequence in time a more united insular island people.
In order to address this question we will need to refer to the erudite work of a past historian Dr William Stubbs- Bishop of Oxford and Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford in his lectures on
ENGLISH HISTORY
1906
*
We will proceed-to England, of which I have ventured to affirm that it is a country in which Teutonic genus has been freely developed, notwithstanding the intermixture of the blood and the disturbances of foreign influences. And here the proposition that I have to lay down is briefly this: that the main paternal stock from which the English and their Constitution spring is Teutonic: Teutonic in source as from the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes of the first conquest; and Teutonic in the additional streams poured in from subsequent invasions of the Danes and Normans who, although by their different history and discipline they were made at the time of their introduction into England to exhibit an antagonism in language and institutions to the earlier stock, showed by the ease with which they mingled with it, and the rapidity with which within a century and a half they returned to it, that they were originally closely akin.
In intermixing with the English the Dane within a very few years cast off all that was Scandinavian, and the Norman retained in some few departments of language only what he had contracted during two centuries of a French home and apprenticeship to French institutions.
The Teutonic is the paternal element in the English race, as shown in physique, in language, in law, and in custom. This is my firm conclusion.
I need not tell you that it is one which has been and is still fiercely contested, nor could I lecture on the subject ever so superficially without devoting some time to argument on the points.
[In July 2006 a University project has revealed that the conquest of greater part of Britain was effected by the English with only little intermixture with the Celtic inhabitants within the conquered territory bordering the fastnesses and extremes of the Island.]
One or two topics I must put aside as too minute and remote from our general subject to be considered now, although in themselves of importance, especially the question to what extent was the British population before the great wave of Saxon conquest intermingled with German races from the opposite coast: where the Roman
legionnaires who occupied and may have helped in peopling Britain any of them of German origin?
Were the Belgae or the Coritavi of Britain akin to the German or half- German tribes that are said to have borne similar names abroad, or were the pirates of the Saxon shore tenants or only depredators of the British coast? If these be answered one way, they strengthen my argument; if they be answered the other, they do not weaken it.
To constitutional history in the remotest way they cannot be said to belong. Between them and the Anglo-Saxon system spreads the wave of Roman occupation.
Granted , then, that Britain when we first hear of it was inhabited by a race of Celtic, to whom. Perhaps, the name of Cymru is the proper tribal name, and who were broken up into little states, bearing names most of which are capable of reference to Celtic roots; that this race, partly by its own development, partly by commerce with the civilised nations of the Mediterranean and partly by intercourse with semi-civilised Gaul, had arrived before the Roman invasion at a sort of rude semi-civilisation which kept its enemies at bay; that it was subjugated by Rome with that cunning and cruelty which marked all Roman aggression, and when conquered consolidated with that strong and kind policy that marks as distinctively the hold which Rome maintained where she was certain that she had conquered; granted that when, in the decay of Rome, Britain was deserted by those who had defended and developed her, she was left with a mixed population and semi-Romanised institutions to work out her destiny alone; granting all this, what does history tell us followed?
