double post

Answer came there none.

In fact, once one moves past the superficial gung-ho jingoism (to be English, you need English parents and English ancestors etc etc”) you realise that using such simplistic ideas is actually impracticable, and produces absurd results, most of which such posters hadn’t thought of. When they do think of them, they find they have no answer. Such as hi de hi’s claim that he is English because his parents and ancestors were, yet he doesn’t (and can’t) know what his ancestors were, apart from the tiny percentage he can identify. And so hi de hi cannot, by his own definition, prove that HE is English, (and in fact isn’t English) which is a delicious irony.

It would be good if people could think beyond the superficial. Maybe there is a lesson that the knee jerk rarely produces the right result, and often produces unanticipated outcomes.

And thus endeth the lesson. It would perhaps be an appropriate time to lock the thread.

This thread has become a bore to read!

some interesting and valid points early on before people took comments as insults.

People need to remember these threads are for people to discuss thoughts not to ridicule and make someone appear as something they are not. on most topics, there will be no right answer, lets stop intentionally having a 'pop' at each other.

Ha ha ha! My family tree has had extensive research and goes back in this country as far as we could trace for over 900 years so i have no need to justify who i am to anyone. So if that annoys you tough, and if you want to go crying to the mods to try and get me banned just to make you feel better because i dare to hold a different point of view to the gang of marxists who seem to think they own this forum then go ahead.

All I care about amongst this barrage of overly tribal beans is that Rangi Chase is eligible under both UK and RFL law/rule, to play for England.

He is a fantastic player.

He can play for England.

The Aussies won't be playing England with 100% Australian born players.

England won't be playing Australia with 100% English born players.

The Australians won't like this.

I like this.

I like this

Wow - that's a lot of records. 900years. Saying that every generation lasted 25years, that's 2 (to the power of) 22 records been looked at. About 4 million records.(or gravestones looked at)

There were lots on 'non indigenous' (however defined) people in "this country" 900 hundred years ago, Angles, Saxons, Teutons, Goths, Gauls, Vandals, Vikings and Norman French among others, so if you're not starting from a 'pure' base it proves nothing. I love this "I'm more English than you" stuff, can anyone trump it?

Firstly, Well done if you have an ancestor in your tree from 1111 AD – who is that, exactly? Be that as it may, can you post a link to the rest of your 68,719,476,736 great^36-grandparents? (Allowing a generous 25 years per generation)

No, you’re entirely missing the point. Which is that even if you knew every ancestor for 900 years (and you don’t know even 0.00001% of them), on your system the “English” test is failed as even then you could not prove they all emerged from English parents 930 years ago.

We do not need to go to such extremes. Even going back as recently as 1800, you cannot identify all 512 g^grandparents.

And so by your own system, you cannot prove that YOU are “English”. This is the point I am trying to make, but instead of listening to the logic, you are getting in a huff.



“Annoys”? It makes no difference to me at all. I have shown that you cannot prove you are English, by your definition, and I did this not to annoy you, not to ridicule you, not to provoke hostile reactions from you, but for only one reason: to demonstrate to you the faults in your qualification system. You are the one who came back with an insult, but my problem is not with you personally, it is with your “qualification for England” system, which with respect you have not thought through, and which produces the absurd results that I have politely pointed out, in a reasoned and non-confrontational post.

Why would I want you banned? How weird. I am trying to have a discussion about the criteria for selection for England, and you say that no descendant of mine – even in 900 years from now – could ever be English. If I were you, I would have thought about this and said “Oh, yeah, you’re right, my theory is a bit daft”, and address the qualification theme in the thread, instead of ignoring the thread and coming up with this sort of irrelevant stuff.

As have said, I suspected it is because you either can’t or won’t even consider that your views may be demonstrably wrong, and your system may produce absurd results, and you have to date not addressed that issue at all. Less emotive claptrap, more reasoned debate, and answer the question, please.

Look on the bright side if we hadnt of won the war we may well of been German

It proves everything, if parents both have to be English, then it proves there is no such thing as an Englishman, since if you go back far enough, eventually you get to a point where there were no "English" people, and so no English people can ever have existed, as you can't be English if both parents weren't English! It's barking, but it's not my theory

We're all from Eritrea anyway, so actually we're playing a derby.

This is where you lose all credibility that you lost several pages ago. Rather than answer the questions posed, make a sweeping generalisation. Is that a textbook EDL response?

Personally I object to be called a Marxist, card carrying Stalinist me, Marx was a wimp.

Cant we all just get along and play nicely - you probably turn out to be family, cousins or something looking back through the ancestory ha ha

I've traced my ancestory back 1,000 years & there never has been a Tory or Daily Mail reader in there. [size=50Apart from my parents, but they worked damn hard for their fortune.[/size

Well, maybe not German, but I guess we'd all be taking our family trees a bit more seriously if the Nazis had won..........

Could of made it a bit bigger i was straining then - i should of gone to specsavers

Playing Danny Brough is a bigger joke as the guy chose to play for another country. Once he did this, he should not be able to represent another because hes changed his mind!

EDL is backed by zionists and is nothing to do with true British Nationalism.

Well i would have had nothing to worry about.

Well, EDL refers to "English" and British nationalism refers to "British", so it wouldn't, presumably, would it?

I'm very happy for you. No, really, I am.

Rangi is arguably the best player in the superleague. The reality is, we are are a class b sport constantly looked down at by sports such as union, football and cricket. I say this not as a castleford supporter but as a rugby league supporter, in my eyes the best sport in the world, no question.
Union is the most depressing sport in the world, no question. They field players of all nationalitys and nobody cares. Henry paul represented new zealand in league but was still eligible to play union for England. Kevin peterson the once England cricket captain is south african and football..well i'm not even going there. I've looked down the wigan board and they are possibly about to lose players of the quality of the tomkins brothers.. for big bucks. That sport is hell bent on draining the talent our sport produces to improve their national game. I dont agree with players switching nationalities, but on the flip side it's also refreshing to see a player who could have joined the dark side or the NRL but has decided to commit to England and more importantly our game. Let him play and if we can turn the ozzies over and hopefully turn some heads on the internaional front,well not one of the Class A sports is going to have the front to comment. All the best bulls supporters and fellow rugby league supporters.

Well said that man, boothdaz. Some common sense there.