I quote from Andy Horton
'The other point, I made was that if England could support a larger
population than was present under Roman occupation, you would not actually
need all that many immigrants. They would breed more quickly and their
population would quickly excalate.'
Whatever the rules for marriage, there is nearly always considerable
procreation outside marriage and the only thing that protected the 'purity'
of the Europeans in South Africa was draconian and efficiently adminstered
legal system that made inter-race sexual relations a criminal offence. In
the 19th century I think upto 25% of births were extramarital
'Although some places have a long history of change, many of the place names
were recorded only by the Normans in a relatively short perod of time. Most
first known records of places are 1086 with some the previous centry before
in England and not many (according to AD Mills) dating back much longer
than that: e.g. Londonium, Mamucio, Eboracum, Coloniae Glev (Gloucester)
and others not written down. It seems that the important places were more
likely to retain their Celtic components in the place names.'
The fact that placenames are first recorded in Domesday, does not mean they
were of relatively late formation. There is a considerable body of placemane
scholarship that enables us to to trace the chronology of placenames from
the fifth century onwards
'I wonder if it is plausible to do it the other way around, to suggest that
places with a Celtic or Roman component to their name was either important
or Roman influence that was considerable (or the Saxon influence
But a lot of the Celtic placenames are attached to landscape features, and
while this may explain why so many major rivers have celtic names it does
not explain why many smaller rivers and even smaller subsidiary streams
have celtic names and why other landscape features which, at best, have only
local significance also have celtic names. Indeed the majority of survivimh
celtic place names in the Anglo-Saxon heartland are topographic.