MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Foreigners (British History)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Reading on the word 'Welsh' and its original meaning - allegedly it came from Wealahs which had the meaning of a foreigner / foreign.

What exactly does foreign mean? For as in 'fore' / 'before' ...... reign as in 'rule'?

This would mean that the Anglo-Saxon references to the 'Welsh' as 'fore reigners' - ie 'those who reigned before'........
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why do people keep coming up with these good ideas? I don't like it.
Send private message
Rocky



View user's profile
Reply with quote

"Foreigner" sounds like "forerunner". Forerunner's etymology is:

c.1300, from fore + runner. M.E. rendition of L. precursor, in reference to John the Baptist as the forerunner of Christ.

I wonder when the idiom "to have run of" dates from?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

In a similar vein (!) they're panning for gold in Ireland on telly right now... and dropping the old Golden Fleece idea into the conversation. That is, they're panning for gold in Irish rivers... and Golden Fleece sounds awfully like golden fleets.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Foreigner is supposed to be derived from the Persian ferengi or Arabic faranj, a plural term to denote European or western traders; there's some speculation that faranj is synonymous with Frank/French which is what crusaders (generally English but also Burgundian) called themselves.. A bit like 'barbarians' encompassing all outsiders not just Berbers (by Moorish standards the ferengi were pretty barbaric).
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ferengi... sounds familiar.

Of course... Ferengi. - - The big eared traders of the Alpha Quadrant. - - Those Star Trek guys certainly do their homework.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The big eared traders of the Alpha Quadrant. - - Those Star Trek guys certainly do their homework.

American film-makers have a knack of creating modern mythologies as we've seen. Greedy traders with shameless womenfolk... could it be that Star Trek is just un peu anti-French?
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

'Foreigner' might be connected with forage; overtones of both fighting and poverty (foraging for food, fighting to get a share, etc.). Cf. foray:
1375, Scottish back-formation of forreyer "raider, forager," from O.Fr. forrier, from forrer "to forage," related to fuerre "fodder"

Foreigners are viewed with suspicion and distrust, usually to do with access to, sometimes scarce, resources, especially when they're 'over here'.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

foray: 1375, Scottish back-formation of forreyer "raider, forager,"

Course, since G = Y, forager is precisely equal to, not just related to, forayer/forreyer.
Send private message
GarethMW


In: Somerset
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A quick search on www.etymonline.com came up with the following derivation:

foreign
c.1300, ferren, foreyne "out of doors," from O.Fr. forain, from L.L. foranus "on the outside, exterior," from L. foris "outside," lit. "out of doors," related to fores "door;" spelling altered 17c. perhaps by influence of reign, sovereign. Replaced native fremd. Sense of "not in one's own land" is first attested late 14c.

Seems plausible.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I was thinking far reign, "distant kingdom". That, or "outsider", is simple, prosaic.

Doors, Druids and the Welsh are rather mystical.

Can it be both?
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Maybe the first foreigners migrated from North Africa (as their home region became more arid)... searching 'for rain'.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chad wrote:
Maybe the first foreigners migrated from North Africa (as their home region became more arid)... searching 'for rain'.


If we didn't have a policy banning emoticons, would there be a winky-face at the end of that sentence?
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
If we didn't have a policy banning emoticons, would there be a winky-face at the end of that sentence?


And who said British humour doesn't cross the Atlantic very well?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

OK let's take a look at the mysterious Norman invasion of Wales/Wills

Welsh attacks in England
By the mid-11th century, Wales had been united by the Prince of Gwynedd, Gruffudd ap Llywelyn. Gruffudd pushed into Saxon England, burning the city of Hereford, overwhelming border patrols, and proving the English entirely inadequate to respond to Welsh invasions.[1] During this time, Harold Godwinson led a campaign of raids which dented the authority in Wales.[2] In the wake of this campaign, Gruffudd was turned upon by his own men, who killed him in 1063 and shipped his head off to Edward the Confessor in exchange for the redivision of Wales into its traditional kingdoms.[3] This left a vacuum of power in Wales in which princes and kings were free to squabble over their lands, without the unifying presence of Gruffudd to ward off Norman attacks


Hmmmm.

Early battles
See also The Norman Invasion of Gwynedd and the Aberffraw resistance

It took some time for the Normans to concentrate any level of might against the Welsh, however, as they were more concerned, in the aftermath of Hastings, with England and Normandy.[4] In addition, it was not William’s goal to conquer Wales; he had come to inherit what he believed to be his birthright, the English throne, which entailed taking on the responsibilities of Edward and the Anglo-Saxon kings, including their relationships with Wales and Scotland. However, Wales had begun to force the matter, supporting English rebellions against the Normans.[citation needed]


Not much evidence of the Welsh helping out. There appears not to have been a Norman plan


William's response
In response to Welsh advances, William established a series of earldoms in the borderlands, specifically at Chester, under Hugh d'Avranches; Shrewsbury, under Roger de Montgomerie; and Hereford, under William FitzOsbern. He instilled a great deal of power into each earldom, allowing them control of the surrounding towns and land, rather than retaining it within the kingship. The inspiration for such an action seems to have been the overextended nature of the Norman troops, thus preventing William from exercising his own power in the area.[5] It very well may have been implicit in the power granted the earldoms that they were to attack Wales, and, indeed, they did, beginning with south-east Wales, where many of the previous rebellions against England had begun. By the time of FitzOsbern's death in 1071, a castle had been established at the mouth of the Wye, and it served as a base from which the Normans continued to expand westward into Wales, establishing a castle at Caerleon by 1086 and extinguishing the Welsh Kingdom of Gwent.[6] However, the attacks in south-east Wales "faltered badly when [the earl of Hereford’s] son [Roger de Breteuil]... forfeited his estates for treason in 1075 and involved some of his vassals on the Welsh frontier in his downfall".[7] Nonetheless, the Normans pressed on.



If you are overextended you use the locals against each other. Least that's always been the hated English approach.

"It might have been implicit eh??" IE no evidence.


These movements continued well into the 12th century, into the reign of Henry I. There was relative peace in the early 12th century, however, with a great deal of English influence over Wales but relatively little conflict. The only real expedition into Wales made by Henry was in 1114, when "he set in motion three separate armies intended to overware the ageing prince of Gwynedd".[8] The prince, Gruffudd ap Cynan, however, saw fit to make peace with the king rather than engage in open warfare or hostility. Throughout the period, Henry exerted a great deal of control over Wales, establishing a series of new castles and placing new Lords into positions of power.

Following Henry’s death in 1135, revolts once again broke out in parts of Wales. These revolts caused Norman retreat in many areas, most surprisingly in Deheubarth, where, according to R.R. Davies, "the Normans had made their most striking advances in the previous generation".[9] A notable example was the Battle of Crug Mawr, near Cardigan, in which the Normans suffered a heavy defeat.[10] The period saw a role reversal of sorts, as well, with infighting amongst the Normans, the same sort which had enabled the relative fall of Wales in the previous century.



There is a hell of a lot put down to in-fighting.

By the 1150s, Henry II had set upon fighting back, leading his first expedition into Wales in 1157. He met with heavy and humiliating defeat, particularly at Coleshill / Coed Eulo, where Henry was entirely unsuccessful, almost being killed in the fighting. His army routed and fled. [11] He moved against his British adversaries again in 1163, later sources relate how he gained an unclear form of homage from the two most powerful princes of Wales, Rhys ap Gruffydd and Owain Gwynedd along with the king of Scotland. This was the catalyst to revolt in Wales; Henry II met with defeat in 1165 at Berwyn. Henry never successfully invaded Wales and he was obliged to seek compromise with Rhys ap Gruffydd for control of the south.


I have my doubts about these battles. Let's take a look at 1165

The Battle of Crogen is the name given to an engagement said to have taken place in the Ceiriog Valley, Wales, during Henry II of England's summer 1165 campaign against an alliance of a number of Welsh princedoms led by Owain Gwynedd. Although outnumbered, the guerrilla tactics of a detachment from the Welsh forces aided them in inflicting an unknown number of casualties on the Anglo-Norman army. Henry subsequently abandoned the campaign after an attempt to cross the Berwyn Mountains was thwarted by severe weather.

It is unclear whether events in the Ceiriog Valley represented a pitched battle, a series of smaller engagements or a minor skirmish: all three have been argued, as well as the possibility no fighting took place during the 1165 campaign. It has been suggested that the idea of a "battle" should be considered as folklore rather than as a genuine historical event.[1] There are few contemporary accounts: 19th century and later accounts of the "battle" rely heavily on David Powel's 1584 Historie of Cambria, an unreliable historical source.


It appears worthy of further study . Meanwhile the English think that Taffy was a Willsman. ie supporter of the Normans.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group