I was born in Worcester, parents Welsh, my brother was born in Wellington NZ, my parents moved back before I was born after they worked out in NZ for a bit, was my brother and immigrant, were my parents. My brother moved to NZ when he was about 20, was he an immigrant then or not? It's very confusing isn't it.
I am confident however that as I am white Rupert Lowe will not try to report me when he is king
I'm British (English+Scots) far back enough to be considered native, but as I live abroad now with no intention of moving back I'm very happy to give my spot to someone else!
A bit of a mixed bag as I'm English born, as were my parents, my grandparents are 2 x English, 1 X Indian, 1 x Polish.
Lived in Scotland (22 years total), England (28 years), Wales (6 months)
Born in India and registered to the British High Commission one month later, and they got my birthday wrong.
If I follow the surname of my parents:
England born parents.
Grandparents 3 England and 1 Welsh born.
Great Grandparents: Schull in southern Ireland and a few places in Nottinghamshire.
Great great grandparents: Southern Ireland Baltimore and Bantry, or other side of family is Caithness and Nottinghamshire (the surname on very earliest record we can find has the Danish spelling....)
So Celtic bred..so nah, not a local.
So do you consider yourself native of Wales, Scotland or England then?
Not really.
I'm variously European, British, English, Lancastrian, Accringtonian, Fern Gore-ian depending on how granular you want to go. I was born here as was every family member as far back as I'm aware. But to my mind at least, "native" implies a degree of indigenousness which would be difficult to define or justify.
It's also a racially loaded question, especially in the current climate. Are people whose family from grandparents down were all born here but their great-grandparents born in ****stan considered "native"? How far back do we need to go?
Is the question “am I”, or “do I consider myself” a native?
Neither answer really matters when it is someone else that will make the judgement based on their own criteria.
In my opinion the multicultural experiment has completely failed and it was always going too. I think a multi ethnic society could work but that’s not the same thing.
Go to London, report back.
Multiculturalism works just fine when it's exactly that. Where it falls apart is when you have "us and them."
I would be interested to hear where you live and what your experience of multiculturalism is which formed your opinion.
I've often wondered why "we"feel we lost in 1066 when in reality "we" probably won.
I did some studies on this in my degree (paleo-anthropology - You should read my thesis on the evolution of dentition in Australopithecine and Paranthropus subspecies, its a real page turner) ...Anyway mostly if you're white/British you can trace 4 generations back (Great-great grandparents) from you and all the living relatives live within about a 25-45 mile radius, it's statistically more likely that your entire ancestry going back to roughly the early medieval period have lived there. This is the case for 'most' of the UK population. Some people can push back even further, and have DNA common with Romano-British, and there's technology now that can trace you to the bell beaker people. However, we're none of us descended from the early HG groups that were displaced by the Bell-beaker people, (roughly c.10000YA) so we're all immigrants. Personally: Irish, Scots and Anglo-****stani.
Depends on who is asking and their reasons for asking, I guess. In the not-so-distant past, the ancestry of a certain country was studied in great depth by those wanting a more "pure" ethnic state.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/18/nazi-letters-paper-restorers-holocaust-research
I also want to add: day 1 of university I met a girl and we got chatting. Turns out I was born in India and lived in village X for 6 years and am white. She was born in London to Indian heritage parents, moved back to India when 6 months old and lived there for 2 years in village Y which was across the fields from where I was at the same time. We had literally spent our early years within shouting distance of each other. I qualify for dual nationality, we did not think that she did as it was her grandparents who moved to the UK and she was born here (knowing India, these rules on nationality have changed again...)
Yet as someone of colour, she faces all sorts of questions about her heritage. I as a white person never do. Yet she would argue other than skin colour I have more claim to being 'Indian' in some ways....
Of my eight great grandparents five were born abroad-two in Italy, two in what is now the Irish republic and one in Germany. My paternal Grandfather came from a village on the Hampshire/ West Sussex border and my sister in law has traced is family back at lest 250 years in the same village. So I guess I am a bit native.
I've often wondered why "we"feel we lost in 1066 when in reality "we" probably won.
In what way? The numbers who came over as part of the Norman conquest was very low comparatively and whilst plenty who have been in the UK for years would have some Norman ancestry it would mostly be outweighed by those who suffered.
Hence the selective impact on the English language mostly at the elite level.
Father: Indian, Born in Karachi, ****stan. A naturalised British citizen, serving in the British Army at the time of my arrival into the world.
Mother: White, English southern lass from Plymouth.
Me: Born in Germany, a BAOR hospital. Went on to serve 24 years in the British Army myself.
Due to global travel as a child then my subsequent service I've considered myself British. Mixed race, so tick the 'White/Asian's box on forms, census etc.
So, yeah, I'm native. Just a funny shade.
My great grandmother was from Guyana, descended from slaves from Mali (according to my DNA), she married a Scotsman. My mother is from Yorkshire, although I grew up in Scotland. I was born in England and grew up in Scotland. Having lived and worked in England for 33 years, I am now living back in Scotland. Mrs DB is from Kent. We both consider ourselves Scottish.
I see English as an ethnicity and British as a civic identity.
If my wife and I who are both English moved to China and had a child, that child would be English. We could all become Chinese citizens with Chinese passports but we still wouldn’t be ethnically Chinese.
Non of that really matters that much. What we’re really talking about is mass migration, multiculturalism, identity, culture, integration, assimilation etc.
In my opinion the multicultural experiment has completely failed and it was always going too. I think a multi ethnic society could work but that’s not the same thing.
Thanks for your explanation. I'm seeing and experiencing something similar on a much more local level here in the Scottish Highlands and Islands where and it's a difficult balance between "incomers" keeping the place alive but, at the same time, replacing culture and tradition.
I can certainly claim an almost complete 5 consecutive generations all born in England. Just 1 great-great-grandmother born in Ireland (whose father was born in England, and in army, sent to Ireland). All fully documented with citations.
Probably makes me more English and more British than the average "sport are troops" "muslamic rayguns" bunch.
If anyone asks, I just say "European", which is probably pretty accurate, and probably covers nearly every direct ancestor for the last 1000 years or so.
I've often wondered why "we"feel we lost in 1066 when in reality "we" probably won.
The Black Death has had more of a lasting impact on our ancestry than 1066
Born in Kenya, British parents serving abroad, so I have a British passport and I'm "native" at least 4 generations back.
That might not protect me from a Reform ICE campaign.
I always think that being a native of a given place means that you were born there. My daughter is a native Bolivian… but she has other identities. I also feel that my ancestry is only relevant in a sentimental and personal way. I live somewhere where people are continually referencing how locally based their ancestry is… they do it to secure their entitlement and legitimacy and get one up on others. As it happens I have loads of ancestors from within a few miles of where I live now… but I don’t feel that I should use that fact to make my opinion on anything seem more legitimate, however tempting it may be to do so, especially when one appears to be losing an argument;-)
My mother was from Doncaster but I think her parents moved there from Wales. Father was born in Scotland but an army kid so moved about. His mother was a McDougall so probably a big percentage of British ancestry.
Has anyone paid for one of those DNA tests where they claim to be able to detail your origins?
I was born in England so I’m native.
I agree with NBT though, if I had Irish grandparents I’d an Irish passport to make living and travelling to the EU abroad.
I’m a citizen of the world..
We both consider ourselves Scottish.
In Scotland we often hear the diaspora referred to - but not in England... 🤔
Says British on my passport. Said the same on my parents passports and so on back two more generations.
So I guess I'm as close to native as you get all things considered.
If asked I say I am British.
Got my DNA done a few years ago. 85% Scottish, 13% Irish and 2% Norwegian. My mum is into doing family tree stuff so we know where the Scottish/Irish comes from but have yet to discover any Norwegian connection. I am not in the UK now so am an immigrant myself.
5000 years. anyone arriving after that is an immigrant
You're out by a little this https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-making-of-an-island.html suggests the cut-off is 20,000 years!
Joanne Lumley was born in ****stan.Do we not consider her British?
No idea what's happened with the post above.I must have broken some rule or other.
Born in Scotland
Dad's Irish
Mum's Scottish
Born in Gibraltar. Moved back to UK when I was two. I have two birth certificates.
Never considered native or not.
my great grandad was norwegian. so whatever that makes me is fine.
Dunmails blinded sons saw more of the Saxon realm than the heathen fellsmen from whence I descend. Webbed fingers to prove it, too.
I have to say with the recent influx of westmorland savages from Kendal, Milnthorpe and the hinterlands, whilst they have "their ways", they are learning to integrate, dropping theirs Pitts for pimps, for example.
Born in England with 1 Welsh grandparent and the rest English, not yet lived in a different country. So probably find it hard to comprehend some of the nuances here.
Daughter, I perhaps would describe as half Polish because I'm lazy. If I reflect on it, I think she'd describe herself as English and Polish which is definitely more accurate. Because humans are complex creatures, she is capable of portraying the essense of both, sometimes within the same sentence 🙂
She was born here and and always lived here mind, so I'd be genuinely confused if someone called her an immigrant.
Born in Watford,Dad was Scottish but with cousins in Northern Ireland, Mum was an Essex girl. Spent 4 years as a child in Australia before coming back, describe myself as British.
Grew up in a small mining town in Staffordshire, so a few classmates with parents from eastern europe and 2 Italians. A couple of our local surnames are Molineaux and Burgoyne so I assume a Norman link and William the Conquorer was 3 or 4 generations back from Rollo, The first duke of Normandy.
Annoy a few folk locally by saying we're all Africans, just check the fossil record.
No idea what's happened with the post above.I must have broken some rule or other.
The swear filter kicked in I would think.
quite a few posts have gone i think
Forgot I'd done the Ancestry DNA thing when Jnr was doing some research - so here's my breakdown. Their "East Midlands" on the map is more Yorkshire, where my mum was born, dad was from South Shields
British? - Wales, Cumbria, Cornwall.
Everyone else is 'Euro' (Germanic, French, Scandi or Irish).
Romans? What did they ever do for......... etc, etc
😉 (just in case....)
