An Analysis of the Linguistic Phylogeny of Breton

[Menydh]

An Analysis of the Linguistic Phylogeny of Breton

Nicolas C. Ward, Ling 52, 2004.04.19

Abstract

The claim that Modern Breton is directly descended from ancient Gaulish, a much older Celtic language, is one that has been made by a number of otherwise respectable Breton linguists. They have been influenced by a desire to create a national identity for the Bretons, one that includes a rich linguistic history. The linguistic evidence, however, clearly refutes this claim, and places Breton as a descendant of Brythonic, along with Welsh and Cornish. An examination of some of the major sound changes in Brythonic and Gaulish confirms the generally accepted phylogeny.

Introduction
Throughout the world, language is very closely tied to culture. This is even more true in the communities of linguistic minorities, where their cultural heritage in a large part depends on maintaining their linguistic independence. Unfortunately, this nationalist mentality, while good for protecting an endangered language, can lead to unscientific interpretations of linguistic data. One of the more famous examples is Basque, in which some linguists have made the claim that it is a nearly unchanged form of Proto-Indo-European, or perhaps even Proto-World. In addition to a dearth of linguistic data supporting these claims, there is conflicting evidence in the historical
record.

A similar situation has arisen more recently with Breton, a Celtic language spoken in the rural regions of Brittany in France. Breton has been suppressed for many years by France’s official language policies, although it is not yet a moribund language. In the last century, there has even been a resurgence in the production of Breton literature and poetry. In order to promote a nationalist agenda, the Breton linguist François Falc’hun proposed that Breton was the direct descendant of ancient Gaulish (Macaulay, 371), a Celtic language spoken in France at the time of the Roman conquest of France, then the province of Gaul. Gaulish was also a contemporary of Brythonic, the ancestor of Breton, Cornish, and Welsh.

This view is simply incorrect, and although there may remain a small handful of Gaulish elements in Modern Breton, they were not inherited, but borrowed. Breton and Gaulish are definitely related, as they are both descendants of p-Celtic, the branch of the Celtic language family where PIE *k ^w > *p (Macaulay, 5). Gaulish is also a p-Celtic language, so it is more closely related to Breton than any of the other non-Brythonic Celtic languages, which are classified as q-Celtic. That is where the similarities end; Gaulish is a continental Celtic language, whereas Breton is insular, a distinction that reflects the history of Celtic as it spread across western Europe, but later becoming largely isolated to the British Isles.

After a brief discussion of the history of Breton and Gaulish, their linguistic differences will be examined. These will conclusively show that Breton is not a descendant of Gaulish, as posited by some nationalist linguists.

History of Breton
At the end of the 4th century AD, the Britons lived in the southwestern region of post-Roman Britain. Over the next 200 years, many of them migrated to the Continent, under pressure from expanding Anglo-Saxon territory in eastern England and coastal raids performed by Pictish- and Scottish-speaking tribes from Ireland. The Briton settlers quickly integrated with the Armoricans (who spoke Vulgar Latin), a transition eased by their common status as Roman citizens and as Christians (Galliou, 128). These two groups quickly became known as the Bretons, and the region became Britannica, now Brittany. They spoke a form of Old Breton, a close descendant of Brythonic. An army of Bretons even went to battle with Roman soldiers in an attempt to repel the invading Franks, a Germanic tribe moving into northern Gaul.

Breton managed to resist the powerful influence of French throughout the middle ages, with even 16th century Middle Breton retaining a predominantly Celtic vocabulary, with very few loan words from Romance or Germanic languages (Galliou, 144). Starting with the Frankish Carolingian dynasty, Brittany fell under (largely) French control, and remained in that state under a string of kings and dukes.

The greatest threat to the Breton language did not actually arise until the formation of the First French Republic in 1792. The period of French nationalism that followed, including the Napoleonic Wars, encouraged equality of the people in all aspects of their lives. This including the institution of a common language: French. In the case of the Bretons, the French language was forced upon them through the educational system. Only recently has Breton become more accepted in formal education in Brittany, although it is still an endangered language.

History of Gaulish
The Gauls were a presence in what is now modern-day France by at the latest 1000 BC. They were an offshoot of the ancient Celts who migrated westward across Europe, although they remained on the Continent. Gauls were responsible for the sacking of Rome in 390 BC, and Gauls were also present in Iberia, and some even found their way to Asia Minor, in a region that was known as Galatia at the time of Paul’s Epistles.

Julius Caesar was responsible for the Roman conquest of Gaul by 51 BC, a rule which continued until the Frankish invasions of 486 AD. The Gauls quickly adapted to life under imperial rule, and abandoned Gaulish in favor of Latin. The similarity between the two languages, both members of the Italo-Celtic family, was sufficient to make the transition fairly smooth. Gaulish has been extinct since the period of Roman rule, although some loan words may have survived into Modern Breton (Galliou, 145).

Linguistic Comparison
Essentially, this issue is one of phylogeny. In the case discussed here, there are two possible trees: one in which Breton and Welsh are both Brythonic languages, and Gaulish is a now-dead offshoot of p-Celtic, and one in which Breton is the modern descendant of Gaulish, as proposed by Falc’hun. The difference between these two phylogenies is illustrated in Figure 1, where the former is Phylogeny A and the latter is Phylogeny B. Both of these are theoretically valid phylogenies, but there is a lot of evidence that makes Phylogeny much more widely accepted.

Breton uses an SVO ordering, unlike any of the other modern Celtic languages, which use VSO (Macaulay, 386). Gaulish also used SVO, but it is more likely that Breton’s unusual (for Celtic languages) ordering is a result of its close contact with French, an SVO langage. Although this is an interesting fact about the languages under scrutiny, the placename and sound change evidence covered in this section is far more telling.

Breton is broken up into a number of highly distinct dialects, which is somewhat unusual for a language spoken in such a small geographic area. The three northern dialects are Léon, Kernev, and Treger, and are all fairly similar. The southern dialect, Gwened (or Vannetais) is much more divergent (Press, 2). The geographic distribution of the dialects is in a large part the origin of Falc’hun’s claim regarding Breton’s ancestry. He believed that the only way to explain Vannetais’ unusual separation from the other three dialects was that it had been influenced by absorbing elements of ancient Gaulish at the time of the arrival of the Britons in Armorica.

As in many historical linguistics studies, evidence of an older state of the language can be found in modern-day placenames, which tend to be preserved. Gaulish placenames tended to end in -acos, which became -acum during the Gallo-Roman period, to largely match Latin placenames. As Vulgar Latin evolved into French, -acum became -ay, -y, or -é. The arrival of the Briton settlers, speaking a Celtic language, helped maintain an intermediate stage of that transformation: -ac. This suffix is still present today, in the forms -oc, -euc, -uc, and -ec (Galliou, 138). The distribution of placenames is such that these are found largely in western Brittany, the area farthest from the encroaching French influence. With a reduced incidence of loan words, western Brittany is very likely the region that best preserves Celtic elements in the Breton language.

The placename example is an element of Gaulish that has survived into Modern Breton, but it does not mean that Breton is a descendant of Gaulish. In publishing his claim, Falc’hun did call attention to the presence of some connection between these two Celtic languages, one that had been largely ignored by other scholars. In order to refute his claims, they were forced to study the possibility that there was a connection. Thus, although he challenged the canonical interpretation of the data with a highly dubious conclusion, Falc'hun did force another examination of more legitimate research into the origins of Breton.

One piece of evidence against Phylogeny B is found in the formation of noun cases. Gaulish had a gendered genitive case suffix: -i for feminine genitive, and -as for masculine genitive. It also had a general masculine ending -os. All three of these endings are not present in the Brythonic languages. Both Modern Welsh and Modern Breton do not use them. It is possible that this is a parallel development in Welsh, and in Breton descending from Gaulish, as opposed to a change in Brythonic from p-Celtic. The loss of morphological characteristics, such as these case endings, is often a parallel innovation (Forster, 2).

It is also helpful to examine the consonant systems in use in the modern languages. Welsh has 22 consonant phonemes: /p b t d k g f v θ ð s ʃ ɬ x h ʧ ʤ m n ŋ l ɾ/ (Macaulay, 321). Breton has 20 consonant phonemes: /p b t d k g f v s z ʃ ʒ x h m n ɲ l ʎ r/ (Macaulay, 428). These are fairly similar, with the exception of the affricates /ʧ ʤ/ in Welsh, which are loans from English, and the /ʒ ɲ ʎ/ in Breton, which are loans from French. Welsh and Breton are close relatives, and although their are influenced by the Germanic and Italic neighbors, respectively, it is unsurprising that they both have similar consonant systems.

The cognates in words for family members is more solid evidence that Welsh and Breton are closely related as Brythonic languages, whereas Gaulish is an ancient offshoot of p-Celtic. The word “mother” is <mam> in Modern Welsh, and <mamm> in Modern Breton, but <matir> in Gaulish (Forster, 3). There were two forms for "mother" in Proto-Celtic: *mātīr and *mammā. p-Celtic preserved both of these proto-forms, but Gaulish kept only *mātīr, whereas Brythonic kept only *mammā. Both Breton and Welsh lost the word-final -ā in this case. It could be a parallel innovation, but the use of *mammā for "mother" was a probably a common innovation in Brythonic (Jenkins, 80).

Even more obvious are the cognates for "daughter": Gaulish duxtir, Welsh merch, and Breton merc’h. Note that <x>, <ch>, and <c’h> all represent /x/ (Forster, 3). The Gaulish duxtir is probably a loan word from another Indo-European language, because the Proto-Celtic form for "daughter" is *merkā (Jenkins, 30). Again, we see the loss of word-final ā, as well as k > x, in both Welsh and Breton. The same sound changes apply to Proto-Celtic "horse" or *markā, which is marka in Gaulish, and march and marc'h in Welsh and Breton, respectively (Jenkins, 63) (Whatmough) (Nodine) (Press, 361). It is unclear where the Gaulish form for "daughter" came from, but it must either be a loan word or a mistaken attribution. Still, in this case we see further similarities between the vocabulary of Welsh and Breton, as well as some common sound changes that probably occurred to their common ancestor Brythonic.

There are other examples of cognates in Modern Welsh (ModW), Modern Breton (ModB), Proto-Celtic (PClt), and Gaulish (Gal). ModB garan, ModW garan, PClt *garanu and Gal *garanus (ModE crane), where Gaulish preserves the final vowel of the proto-form, which is lost in both Breton and Welsh (Forster, 3) (Jenkins, 28). ModB nerzh, ModW nerth, PClt *nerto and Gal *nertos (ModE strength), where Gaulish again adds a word-final s. Breton and Welsh differ in the articulation of the word-final fricative, but in the consonant systems described above, Breton has /ʒ/ and not /θ/, whereas Welsh has the reverse. Presumably p-Celtic *t went to these two fricatives in Welsh and Breton, but was still /t/ in the older Gaulish (Press, 366) (Nodine) (Jenkins, 122) (Whatmough) (Macaulay).

Conclusion
There is more than sufficient evidence to phylogenetically place Breton as a descendant of Brythonic, along with Welsh and Cornish. This is the Phylogeny A as depicted in Figure 1. The roots of Gaulish lie farther back on the Celtic language tree, and while there is some evidence that elements of ancient Gaulish have survived into modern-day Breton, it did not occur through inheritance.

The historical evidence also cannot be ignored; Gaulish was effectively replaced by Latin during the Roman conquest of Gaul, which occurred almost 500 years before the migration of Britons from Britain to Brittany. This fact alone should convince any linguist who doubts the canonical interpretation of the phylogeny.

Breton is not a descendant of Gaulish, but it is sensible from a nationalist point of view to make that claim. By giving your nation over two millennia of linguistic continuity, you engender a certain amount of pride in its citizens. While this is in some ways an admirable goal, it is by no means linguistically valid. The comparative method has given a reconstructed tree of the Celtic language family that clearly separates the origins of Breton from the branch containing Gaulish. They are clearly related, but Gaulish is most definitely not an ancestor of Breton.

References
Forster, Peter and Alfred Toth. “Toward a phylogenetic chronology of ancient Gaulish, Celtic, and Indo-European”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Vol. 100: 9079-9084. ©2003.

Galliou, Patrick and Michael Jones. The Bretons. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. ©1991.

Jenkins, Geraint H. "English - Proto-Celtic". University of Wales Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies, ©2002. Internet, 2002.06.12. http://www.aber.ac.uk/awcwww/MoE-PCl.pdf

Macaulay, Donald, ed. The Celtic Languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. ©1992.

Nodine, Mark H. "English to Welsh Lexicon". Cardiff University, ©2003. Internet, 2003.02.20. http://oldweb.cs.cf.ac.uk/fun/welsh/LexiconEW.html

Press, Ian. A Grammar of Modern Breton. Mouton de Gruyter, New York, NY. ©1986.

Whatmough, Joshua. Dialects of Ancient Gaul: Prolegomena and Records of the Dialects. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. ©1969.


[source (PDF)]

[Carnyx]

The Briton settlers quickly integrated with the Armoricans (who spoke Vulgar Latin), a transition eased by their common status as Roman citizens and as Christians (Galliou, 128).

This is still debatable. IMO, the debate turns around the following question : did the Armoricans still speak their Gaulish language or did they speak Latin?

I rather think the former is more logical ; it's obvious that they -as a rural population- still used Gaulish, that's why the Britons so quickly integrated.

The Gauls quickly adapted to life under imperial rule, and abandoned Gaulish in favor of Latin.

What a shortcut. It is believed that the Gauls would have kept speaking Gaulish until -at least- the Vth century AD.

The similarity between the two languages, both members of the Italo-Celtic family, was sufficient to make the transition fairly smooth.

Fairly smooth for collaboraters : the high cast.

Gaulish has been extinct since the period of Roman rule, although some loan words may have survived into Modern Breton (Galliou, 145).

I doubt it was so easy and so fast. Traditions and language are better preserved in a traditional and rural society (far more than we have ever known) than in any modern and industrial one. It's well known. We have to imagine the way of living at that period. I don't buy this simplistic theory.

He believed that the only way to explain Vannetais’ unusual separation from the other three dialects was that it had been influenced by absorbing elements of ancient Gaulish at the time of the arrival of the Britons in Armorica.

Had already read/heard that. Exactly what I think. Gaulish was still spoken in Armorica during the migration of Bretons.

As in many historical linguistics studies, evidence of an older state of the language can be found in modern-day placenames, which tend to be preserved. Gaulish placenames tended to end in -acos, which became -acum during the Gallo-Roman period, to largely match Latin placenames. As Vulgar Latin evolved into French, -acum became -ay, -y, or -é. The arrival of the Briton settlers, speaking a Celtic language, helped maintain an intermediate stage of that transformation: -ac. This suffix is still present today, in the forms -oc, -euc, -uc, and -ec (Galliou, 138). The distribution of placenames is such that these are found largely in western Brittany, the area farthest from the encroaching French influence. With a reduced incidence of loan words, western Brittany is very likely the region that best preserves Celtic elements in the Breton language.

The -ac also exist there (as in Southern France), as well as -oc, -euc, -uc, and -ec. I heard once that the -ay, -y, or -é is an influence of the Germanic on the pronounciation (north, north-east). Hence, wherever you find -ac, -oc, -euc, -uc, and -ec , it means there has been less Germanic influences.

The historical evidence also cannot be ignored; Gaulish was effectively replaced by Latin during the Roman conquest of Gaul, which occurred almost 500 years before the migration of Britons from Britain to Brittany. This fact alone should convince any linguist who doubts the canonical interpretation of the phylogeny.

This is simply untrue. Gaulish was still spoken by the people till the Vth century AD. Only the high casts abandonned so easily the Gaulish language for the Latin after the Roman conquest.

[Llywarch Hen]

Ah, now this is the stuff we were talking about in the Other Thread!

Originally Posted by Duchemin

This is still debatable. IMO, the debate turns around the following question : did the Armoricans still speak their Gaulish language or did they speak Latin?

Could also have been a bastardised Pidgin of the two.
Either way, the peasants would have been rather conscious of it being a low prestige medium of communication. This might explain a complete change-over to British, once they saw these new Lords and Ladies from Britannia using Celtic with pride!

What a shortcut. It is believed that the Gauls would have kept speaking Gaulish until -at least- the Vth century AD.

True. I believe St Jerome's contemporary comments about Galatian [in Anatolia] being similar to the peasants' speech back in eastern Gaul, are the ones usually cited in support of this.

I doubt it was so easy and so fast. Traditions and language are better preserved in a traditional and rural society (far more than we have ever known) than in any modern and industrial one.

Ah so that's why Welsh speech was conserved in rural East Anglia [oh, wait, it wasn't! ]...

[Menydh]

As it happened in other parts of the Roman Empire, the language spoken would be a local vulgar Latin whereas there would remain pockets of people speaking Armorican in isolated areas.

This is true also in Hispania, where in the isolated mountain areas of the Basque Lands, Basque continued to be be spoken. And we could even assume that a Celtic language would still be spoken in the mountain areas of Cantabria. So much so that it was this Cantabrian speak (as well as the Basque) which centuries later influenced on the formation of the Castilian language to make it distinctive in sounds to all other Romance languages.

In any case, the attempt to present modern Brittany as some sort of Britonicized Gaul region bears a striking [political-agenda] resemblance to the attempt of the English to present Scotland as some sort of Goidelicized Briton region. Milesian might tell us a bit about the latter.

[Llywarch Hen]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

In any case, the attempt to present modern Brittany as some sort of Britonicized Gaul region bears a striking [political-agenda] resemblance to the attempt of the English to present Scotland as some sort of Goidelicized Briton region. Milesian might tell us a bit about the latter.

I've never heard of any English attempts to do that. What would that serve the English, anyway? Perhaps some British people might push it with such a motive, but British identifying people are not restricted to the English part of the UK, you know.

In any case, Scotland and Breizh are extremely different cases.
Was there armed resistance from Armoricans against Britons for generations? Both Picts and the Strathclyde Welsh did this, not to mention the Angles of Lothian [or the Norse of the Isles and Elsewhere!].

And as you linked before;

Says Thierry, in his Norman Conquest: "With the consent of the ancient inhabitants, who acknowledged them as brethren of the same origin, the new settlers distributed themselves over the whole northern coast"

Goidelicised Britons... Simplistic, but true enough on the whole, but quite a bad job those Goidels did, ending up for the most part as Anglicised Goidelicised Britons.

[Youenn]

It is quite difficult to establish with certainty, whether the Armorican peninsula was totally romanised or not before Breton immigrants settled in. We may never know and end up making endless speculations (which itself is quite interesting).
Concerning more fundamental and ancient affinities, Strabon's observations seemed to link Armoricans to Belgians, who in turn were reported to be close to insular Britons. This seems to indicate a cluster of closely related people in North Western "Gaul" and southern Britain.

By the way, "Gaul" was not a separate entity before Cesar conquered the area, the concept of Gaul existed by and for the Roman empire. What Romans called "Gaul" was in fact only a part of a loose celtic realm ranging from Eastern Europe to the British Isles. This realm shared the Latenian civilisation but was probably an ethnic patchwork made of celtic, celticised and subjugated/allied people.

Of course affinities between Armoricans, Belgians and Britons do not tell much about the population in other parts of "Gaul", e.g. between the Seine river and Massif Central (what Cesar called "Gaule Celtique"). We know for example that further south the Vasconians were in fact the ancestors of modern basques. As for the inhabitants of "Gaule celtique", they may have been from a quite different stock, quite different linguistically, and quite different genetically.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Llywarch Hen

I've never heard of any English attempts to do that. What would that serve the English, anyway? Perhaps some British people might push it with such a motive

Fine. The devil is usually in the details.

but British identifying people are not restricted to the English part of the UK, you know.

Agreed. British is a term that identifies people as far apart from each other as Jamaicans/Afro-Caribbeans, Welsh/Britons or English/Anglo-Saxons.

In any case, Scotland and Breizh are extremely different cases.

I never said that they were exactly similar to each other. Neither do I think that they are extremely different. The details should be compared individually, on a one-to-one basis.

For example, the striking similarity in the British agenda behind de-britonicising the Bretons and the [French] agenda behind de-goidelicising the Scotts. Perhaps to the already mentioned similarity, we should add the also similar detail that both British and French are terms that offer a poor and arguable definition for a national identity.

Was there armed resistance from Armoricans against Britons for generations? Both Picts and the Strathclyde Welsh did this, not to mention the Angles of Lothian [or the Norse of the Isles and Elsewhere!].

And as you linked before;

Wouldn't that add up more strength to the case of, say Wales?

Goidelicised Britons... Simplistic, but true enough on the whole, but quite a bad job those Goidels did, ending up for the most part as Anglicised Goidelicised Britons.

Anglicised.. Germanicised?

On my trips to Scotland I never noticed it, except for the numbers of English tourists which were threatening with turning Scotland's landscape in some sort of Highland's Benidorm (without the skyscrappers for the moment at the time).

Rather, I recall that since I was temporarily living in England I had to shake myself off of whatever habits of English social character I had assimilated, to deal on a better condition with the Scottish. A most pleasant break time for someone who is being exposed to the social habits of England. Like a breathe of fresh air.

[Llywarch Hen]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Agreed. British is a term that identifies people as far apart from each other as Jamaicans/Afro-Caribbeans,

Over my dead body!

For example, the striking similarity in the British agenda behind de-britonicising the Bretons and the [French] agenda behind de-goidelicising the Scotts.

I'll say it again - I've never heard of attempts to rewrite Scottish history by Englishmen, minimising the Gaelic aspect. Have you?

Wouldn't that add up more strength to the case of, say Wales?

How so? I gave a short list of populations that lived in the past on the territory of modern Scotland. All were Goidelicised, and none willingly.

Rather, I recall that since I was temporarily living in England I had to shake myself off of whatever habits of English social character I had assimilated, to deal on a better condition with the Scottish. A most pleasant break time for someone who is being exposed to the social habits of England. Like a breathe of fresh air.

WHich social habits, may I ask?
I'd say your conclusions there are heavily dependent on the region of England you visited, and the class of people you mixed with. I'm a Northerner, who lives nearer the Welsh and Scotch borders than London. I find life in Scotland very familiar.

What exactly are we arguing about, again?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Llywarch Hen

Over my dead body!

Be my guest.
Seriously though, being realistic one must admit that British is a term that is closely linked to the Empire in the mind of people. To the Empire of yesterday.. or to the Commonwealth of today. Consequently while it is not common to hear a 3rd or 4th generation Jamaican, Paki, Indian, etc. in England defining himself as "English", it is much common that they define themselves as British.

I'll say it again - I've never heard of attempts to rewrite Scottish history by Englishmen, minimising the Gaelic aspect. Have you?

I'll leave that to Milesian to answer. He is never punctual, but eventually he always arrives to the appointments.

How so? I gave a short list of populations that lived in the past on the territory of modern Scotland. All were Goidelicised, and none willingly.

Strathclyde Welsh? Would those be Cumbrians?

WHich social habits, may I ask?

For one, being most unsocial while at the same time pretending to be very social.

Not that it was too hard to me to shake them off. Since I was a child, I was taught to behave properly while in a stranger's house. No matter who the stranger was or what my feelings toward the stranger were, if any. It is called saber estar in Spanish. So I simply adopted those habits in a shallow level.

I'd say your conclusions there are heavily dependent on the region of England you visited, and the class of people you mixed with.

I mixed the bare minimum. But right. What little I mixed.. never mind.

I'm a Northerner, who lives nearer the Welsh and Scotch borders than London. I find life in Scotland very familiar.

More of a Briton than an Anglo-Saxon judging by your picture. Cumbrian per chance?

A few months ago I met someone who was half-Scottish and half-Cumbrian. Nice chap. He reminded me much of my Scottish accountancy lecturer in that they both look strong Mediterranean. Both Brythonic looking, and nothing British.. A-S.

What exactly are we arguing about, again?

Britishism and the British stigma. What else?

[Llywarch Hen]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Strathclyde Welsh? Would those be Cumbrians?

Good Lord, no! Cumberland is the county around Carlisle. Strathclyde is the region of southwestern Scotland centred on the river Clyde [Glasgow, Dumbarton, Renfrew]. The two don't touch. When there was a Kingdom of Strathclyde, my part of England [including modern Cumberland] was in a Kingdom of it's own, called Rheged. Do a search on my screen name...

I mixed the bare minimum. But right. What little I mixed.. never mind.

I see. Come to Manchester next time.

More of a Briton than an Anglo-Saxon judging by your picture.

If you look at my ancestors of the 5th Century and divide them into two such groups, then yes, probably [and many Irish too]. But the nonIrish part has been solidly English in language and culture for a good 1300 years. Is that irrelevant?

Cumbrian per chance?

Lancastrian. The next county south. I have a lot of family up in the further north though.

Britishism and the British stigma. What else?

But what exactly ARE they in your book?