ITT: Try and explain migrational history of the Brits to a noob

>>2598366
>What would it mean to say that someone is 99% British origin?
If by British you mean Britons, then it mean you're a Native Briton.

If you mean otherwhise then it mean nothing cause according to my understanding the term "British citizen" is opposed to the term "English Native"

>>2598459
Where did the native Britons come from, is that known?

Damn I wish we were actually taught about this in school

>>2598553
I mean before they settled on the West of what is Modern Britain

>>2598366
>What would it mean to say that someone is 99% British origin?
Nothing. There's no objective definition of britishness. Most people would however agree that four european grandparents born in Britain would make you pretty damn british.

>explain migrational history of the Brits
Basically, they had the same early genetic history as the rest of the continent: pre-ie people first populate the area 20-10k years ago, then the indoeuropeans (mostly celts from the continent) arrive during the bronze age. Then come the romans, who are however mostly a ruling overclass and don't really change the gene pool.
In the middle ages arrive the germanics and the scandinavians. They leave a somewhat large genetic footprint in northern England and the Lowlands. Then the normans arrive, but it's basically the romans redux.
After that it's basically fucking nothing until the modern day. I would say that we're now seeing the country shift into a caliphate, but I do realize that no matter how distasteful a sight London is, we're still nowhere near that level overall.

File: balaresque_2010_r1b-variance.jpg (664KB, 4416x3344px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 4416x3344px

>>2598553
Britons were just Belgae Gauls in fact some tribes were present in both continental Europe and Britain*, as for the Gauls themselves they came from Central Europe, and they're homeland is most likely Anatolia
* Lugii were present in Poland and Scottland; Belgae were present in France-Belgium and Britain; Menapii were present in Ireland, Belgium-Netherlands, and Britain, and so on

>>2598658
>Britons were just Belgae Gauls
Hardly. All evidences point to insular celtic splitting from continental well before the continental celtic languages differentiated. Calling the ancient britons belgae would be the same as calling your cousin your father.

>>2598658
So you're saying that brits are related to current day turks?
Is that why guinness is so popular in turkey?

File: c123fff2c377e3f26e451e4f111b28ee.gif (305KB, 1592x1064px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1592x1064px

>>2598707
I'm saying that Celts are related to Hittites(R1b ) not Turks.

>>2598686
I'm not calling them like that it was the name of one of their tribe, and several Britons tribes(if not all) were Belgae.