Are these people really British?

There is only one Fundamental British Value.

And that is a total inability to get two British people to agree on British Values.

All else is froth. .

There's no British culture, only Fundamental British Values(tm). Didn't you get the memo?

That’s silly. My grandparents came from another country. I’m voting for reform because I deeply appreciate the migrant workers we need, but do not want to fund illegal immigrants. I work with illegal immigrants and some are good and grateful wanting a job, but most ask for benefits and a free home and won’t work. I have witnessed it.

Yup.
To paraphrase A. Sivanandan, 'They are here because we were there.'

Not quite sure if there is a point there or not ?

That's because its the same old story throughout time. It all goes back to tribalism from when being part of a tribe and fighting against others kept you safe and alive.

About 50,000 Huguenots came to the UK over 40 years, so roughly 1250 a year. The UK's population at the time was 5.4 million. So we're talking roughly 0.02% annual immigration rate.

In 2025, roughly 813,000 people immigrated to the UK, against a population of 70 million, a 1.16% immigration rate in one year, around 60x the rate of immigration of the Huguenots.

I don't think anyone really endorses the position of "if you are okay with a thing, you are also okay with a 60-fold increase in that thing." People have preferences about amounts.

None of this implies that immigration is bad. I think you can be strongly pro immigration, whilst also saying that it's intellectually dishonest to imply that the current waves of immigration and the Huguenot waves of immigration are the same. It's important to call out bad arguments, even when they're overall arguing for a side that I agree with.

Are you also sad that people do it for this reason?

Or just sad that we know this?

People primarily emigrate to higher-pay countries to maximize their earning potential, improve their standard of living, and access superior career opportunities that may be unavailable in their home nations. These economic drivers form the core of the push-pull dynamic in global migration.
Key reasons include:

• Higher Disposable Income: Stronger currencies and higher absolute wages allow individuals to save more, invest, and build long-term wealth.
• Enhanced Remittances: Many emigrants send a significant portion of their income back home to support extended family, lifting dependents out of poverty.
• Career Advancement: Access to advanced industries, better resources, and larger professional networks accelerates skill development and career growth.
• Superior Social Infrastructure: Higher-tax economies in wealthy nations frequently offer robust public services, including publicly funded healthcare, top-tier education, and enhanced social safety nets.
• Favorable Working Conditions: Migrants often seek nations with stricter labor laws, stronger workers' rights, and better work-life balance regulations.

Yeah war was definitely inevitable, it was either crown William and the people revolt, or crown Harold and the Normans invade. The “English” were obviously not happy with the result of the war and there were many years of Norman occupation and an us vs them mentality before the cultures began to merge.

Anyway I’m going to bow out as this seems to be turning into a discussion about whether modern immigration is a good or bad thing rather than a discussion about the culture and behaviour of people who lived in the past, which was what I was originally interested in. I have my views on modern immigration, but I find that discussing it online is too draining, as people tend to be so entrenched in their own views that they are unwilling to hear other views or nuances to their arguments, so it fails to be a proper debate, but is just a lot of angry people arguing with each other.

there was no migration directly from Africa, India, South America etc before 1066. It was movements of people already in Europe.

If your starting point is 1066, your are a millennia too late.

The scale of immigration we have now today is way way more in terms of numbers and complexity than whatever took place in the past. Even during the Norman invasions, it was an elite group from the other side of the channel (so not that genetically or culturally different) that took political control, which then basically ended up mixing with the local anglo-saxons. They were also of the same religion. You cannot say this is what happens nowadays.

Yeah. And how did that work out ?

I'm a great fan of ignoring counterfactuals. In that vein the Norman conquest was inevitable in some form or another.

Of course the other point being evaded by many here, is if you want to talk about "who let them in ?" you really should move the question from Britain 2026. to "the rest of the world 157x-1949 and find our how the people of India, or South Africa or North America weren't asked either.

Even Dickens noticed these women.

Mrs. Jellyby is a comically neglectful philanthropist from Charles Dickens’s novel Bleak House. She is most famous for her "telescopic philanthropy"—campaigning for the natives of Borrioboola-Gha in Africa while entirely neglecting her own children.
Her most famous descriptions and quotes are from the perspective of other characters, as well as her own placid rationalizations:

• Looking to Africa: "She was a pretty, very diminutive, plump woman of from forty to fifty, with handsome eyes, though they had a curious habit of seeming to look a long way off. As if... they could see nothing nearer than Africa!"
• Ignoring her family's plight: When asked about her son who had just fallen down an entire flight of stairs, or the financial ruin of her husband, she placidly brushes it off, stating: "Happily for me, I am so much engaged that I have no time to think about it."
• The "Telescopic Philanthropy" verdict: John Jarndyce summarizes her character's hypocrisy by noting: "The people who do a little and make a great deal of noise; the other, the people who do a great deal and make no noise at all."

Where do you live and what's your actual direct experience of immigration?

In my experience people who come out with asinine cliches like yours ("the Hugenots! The Normans! We're all immigrants! What is "British" anyway?! Football hooligans? Hahaha") have very limited experience of the day to day reality of the massive unchecked Third World immigration of the last 20 years.

Yeah I used “English” as a simplification for the general public. England didn’t even exist as a unified country until the 10th century, but was just a collection of counties, so most people didn’t consider themselves culturally English until much later.

Admittedly, I just wanted to talk about medieval history as it’s my special interest! So I’m sorry for derailing the thread, but I think the point stands that the Witan took the public’s views into account, they didn’t completely just do what they wanted and sod everyone else. They knew William was going to invade which was why they immediately discounted Edgar as they knew he was too young and wouldn’t be able to lead the army, whereas at least Harold had a chance.

This is not true

Do you think 600 to 900 were arriving every day?

Did the locals have to pay for the French to get accommodation?
Food?
Healthcare?
Dental treatment?
Clothing?
Technology?
Clubs?
Free university?
Language classes?
Travel?

Was itbonly French men thatvturned up?

Did the French men rape the young women from the villages and when the locals prilotested, Did the local get called names by others?

I doubt it.

Your point is ridiculous.

Immigrants are all here for their own personal financial gain.

Like I said, maximum sneer opportunity.

I always laugh at posters calling people with a different opinion bigot! That's literally the definition, unwilling to tolerate a different opinion.

What would your vote have been and which people would you allow in? Where did your ancestors come from?

What about before Windrush the poor out of Ireland, the Jews out of Europe, the Polish, the Italians, etc, etc do they not all count as multi cultural? A democracy means you vote for a political representative it doesn't mean you get a vote on every decision of that government.

Before the EU Britain was part of and led the commonwealth and most people who lived in commonwealth countries were British. So prior to the Second World War there were British people all over the world - India, Hong Kong, Ghana, parts of the Carribean etc. these British people had (largely) freedom of movement within the empire.

nobody held referendums on the British Empire but then nobody asked the people who lived in the countries that were occupied/colonised either.

you’d have to go back almost so the sixteenth century to have a time where British people were only in the British isles.

You will of course note that despite what the "English" people wanted (many would have identified as Danish among other cultures) they did get a Norman king.

Which one might suggest set the tone for the next few centuries.