A REAL second tier Celtic league

Iv'e noticed on a few threads that people have started talking about the Celtic league or the potential for a second division of the Rabo direct, so I had a little think about how one could be created using the Celtic nations, and their second teams in most cases.

Wales (5 teams)
1 Rugby Gogledd Cymru 1404 (North Wales region, Colwyn Bay / Wrexham)
2 Pontypridd RFC / Valleys rugby (Cardiff Blues A side)
3 Bridgend Ravens RFC (Ospreys A side)
4 Cross Keys RFC (Gwent Dragons A side)
5 Pembrokeshire Scarlets (Scarlets A side, playing out of Bridge Meadow, Haverfordwest)

Ireland (4 teams)
6 Ulster Ravens
7 Munster A
8 Leinster A
9 Connacht A

Scotland (3 teams)
10 Scottish Borders (Galashields)
11 Aberdeen (Aberdeen, formerly half of Caledonia Reds)
12 Perth (Perth, formerly half of Caledonia Reds)

Other (4 teams)
13 Stade Nantais (Nantes, Brittany, France)
14 REC Rugby Rennes (Rennes, Brittany, France)
15 Cornish Pirates A (Cornwall England)
16 Douglas RUFC (Douglas, Isle Of Man)

So there we go, a potential 16 team development league for the Celts.

AD, I really like the idea, altho how much of an even playing-field would it be in terms of purely amateur vs semi-pro vs fully pro?

For Scotland, I'd advocate sending the top 3 teams from the Premier league - so that would be Melrose, Dundee HSFP and Gala

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:AD, I really like the idea, altho how much of an even playing-field would it be in terms of purely amateur vs semi-pro vs fully pro?

For Scotland, I'd advocate sending the top 3 teams from the Premier league - so that would be Melrose, Dundee HSFP and Gala

Well if Sponsorship could be attained than the clubs would all have similar income. Certainly from Scotlands point of view they would be using academy players from Edinburgh and Glasgow, the same as the Irish and Welsh teams.

I doubt the French clubs would have much problems, the only tricky one might be the isle of man side.

I'd imagine money would be the issue. Could these teams afford to travel around playing each other? I mean not all the Rabo teams are bringing in big crowds as it is.

Question though Alyn, Leinster as an example mix up their squad for match day selection, depending whether it is a HC or Rabo match, weher will the Leinster A tea come from?

Too expense and neither Connacht or Ulster could put second XV's out week in week out

Too much travelling for too little gain. I cannot see a side from the Isle of Man being able to afford to travel to France every other week or a team travelling from Aberdeen to France every other week being sustainable. I like the idea I just do not think there is enough money in it, the regions are just about surviving now, and I doubt they could subsidise an A side, also if the A sides were stand alone club sides i doubt Cross keys or Camarthen Quins could afford it either.

You do realise don't you that the term 'Celt, has no real basis in history and weas invented in the 1700's and popularised in modern times as a marketing tool.

Here's a quote from the BBC history site (which unlike Wiki is more interested in facts than opinions and urban myth)

However, there is one thing that the Romans, modern archaeologists and the Iron Age islanders themselves would all agree on: they were not Celts. This was an invention of the 18th century; the name was not used earlier. The idea came from the discovery around 1700 that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really were called Celts. This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family of languages. But 'Celtic' was soon extended to describe insular monuments, art, culture and peoples, ancient and modern: island 'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th century.

It's a nice idea and a way of distancing yourself from the common herd, but by and large, the ethnicity of the people in these islands are much the same as they have always been, apart from the obvious influx of Afro-Caribean and Indian Subcontinent peoples that came out of Empire in the 1950's and onwards.


And don't get me started on England 'Saxons', possibly most innacurate name they could have picked.

TrailApe wrote:You do realise don't you that the term 'Celt, has no real basis in history and weas invented in the 1700's and popularised in modern times as a marketing tool.

Here's a quote from the BBC history site (which unlike Wiki is more interested in facts than opinions and urban myth)

However, there is one thing that the Romans, modern archaeologists and the Iron Age islanders themselves would all agree on: they were not Celts. This was an invention of the 18th century; the name was not used earlier. The idea came from the discovery around 1700 that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really were called Celts. This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family of languages. But 'Celtic' was soon extended to describe insular monuments, art, culture and peoples, ancient and modern: island 'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th century.

It's a nice idea and a way of distancing yourself from the common herd, but by and large, the ethnicity of the people in these islands are much the same as they have always been, apart from the obvious influx of Afro-Caribean and Indian Subcontinent peoples that came out of Empire in the 1950's and onwards.


And don't get me started on England 'Saxons', possibly most innacurate name they could have picked.

TA, I guess we could determine the groupings from those people whose ancestors spoke languages that fall into either the Brythonic or Goidelic categories? I think we'd have to leave out the Basques, Galicians and Asturians on that basis tho?

THe term Celt maybe a 17th century invention but it does refer to a distinct group of people - as noted in language amongst other things.

TA, I guess we could determine the groupings from those people whose ancestors spoke languages that fall into either the Brythonic or Goidelic categories? I think we'd have to leave out the Basques, Galicians and Asturians on that basis tho?.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs, hello there.

but language is not an indicator of ethnicity is it - if it was, all people who use English as their mother tongue would be considered as 'germanic'.

So using that argument of language=ethicity, most of the people on these Islands, apart from those that have gaelic as their mother tongue (a few thousand?) are Germans?

Don't think so.

THe term Celt maybe a 17th century invention but it does refer to a distinct group of people - as noted in language amongst other things..

Ok Geoff998rugby, I'm travelling north through Gods Own Country (Northumberland ) on the A696 (which mysteriously changes into the A68 at some point) along Redesdale, I pass a hamlet called Whitelee, which as far as I can remember is the last settlement on the English side of the border, I mosey over the Carter Bar and tootle down into Scotland. The first group of houses you come to is a place called Huntford.

Are you saying that travelling those few miles between Byrness and Huntford I have passed an invisible divide, on one side of which the people are Celts, on the other side of which is English?

I'll grant you that they will speak English with a different accent (if they are locals) but that's not that unusual as those good folk from Redesdale (in England) speak a different accent to me also.

So by all means build a second teir RaboDirect, but please leave the 18th century romanticism behind - or are you advocating that all teams should play naked bar a covering of wode?

Maybe this was mentioned already, didn't have time to read all the comments.

Assuming there would be............ (hate them but here goes) Promotion and Relegation between this new 2nd tier League and the tier 1 main one???? Yes? No?

It'd be very funny if there were promotion/relegation to see let's say Munster A or Leinster A be promoted to the Main Pro12 League at the expense of say Munster or Leinster being relegated...........!

That'd be some story... considering those A sides are there as feeders for the main sides. In a sense, Leinster or Munster could then just shift most of its better players (the ones not responsible for the relegation! ) over to Munster A or Leinster A and campaign again in the tier 1 Pro12 league.

I use them as examples but it seems many sides could do that stunt. So if promotion and relegation is the reason to have the tier 2 league then it becomes a bit of a joke. If the League were to exist in its own right well then it might be a tad pointless given that there are already games for the Munster As and the Bridgend Ravens?

TrailApe wrote:

TA, I guess we could determine the groupings from those people whose ancestors spoke languages that fall into either the Brythonic or Goidelic categories? I think we'd have to leave out the Basques, Galicians and Asturians on that basis tho?.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs, hello there.

but language is not an indicator of ethnicity is it - if it was, all people who use English as their mother tongue would be considered as 'germanic'.

So using that argument of language=ethicity, most of the people on these Islands, apart from those that have gaelic as their mother tongue (a few thousand?) are Germans?

Don't think so.

THe term Celt maybe a 17th century invention but it does refer to a distinct group of people - as noted in language amongst other things..

Ok Geoff998rugby, I'm travelling north through Gods Own Country (Northumberland ) on the A696 (which mysteriously changes into the A68 at some point) along Redesdale, I pass a hamlet called Whitelee, which as far as I can remember is the last settlement on the English side of the border, I mosey over the Carter Bar and tootle down into Scotland. The first group of houses you come to is a place called Huntford.

Are you saying that travelling those few miles between Byrness and Huntford I have passed an invisible divide, on one side of which the people are Celts, on the other side of which is English?

I'll grant you that they will speak English with a different accent (if they are locals) but that's not that unusual as those good folk from Redesdale (in England) speak a different accent to me also.

So by all means build a second teir RaboDirect, but please leave the 18th century romanticism behind - or are you advocating that all teams should play naked bar a covering of wode?

Nevermind other people's points Trailape. I'm interested in yours? What's your point? That all Europeans are from the same stock? Of course we are, we're human...I hope we all have that common ancestor (although sometimes I wonder ). But to get back to the point - we're all the same in ethnical terms? The English, the French, the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh?

Interesting idea but totally impractical.

The "Celtic" league struggled for years to get any sponsorship, so how is a 2nd class B league going to attract any money or support?

TrailApe if you cant see the point I real cant be bothered to explain

I think the best way forward is to say that we are having a 10 ten second division and the top one over two years would play the bottem team for two years.

You let teams apply from reasonable places (eg western europe) and they must show they can survive financail for those two years.

After two years you can review it and most likely it would stay. The problem is getting it going. If A teams were put in they would not be allowed up so it would shelter the bottom pro 12 team for the first two years I would expect

It's not practical or affordable at all. We only travel twice to Italy because they promised to give us extra money in order to do so. Where is an isle of man or cornwall team going to get the money to travel around Europe? Why would the RFU fund them? If WRU did, it would be at the expense of the teams they already have. Most of the teams in the PRO12 only get small crowds and are not exactly rolling in money, as it is.

Plus we already have the B&I Cup. So as well as not being practical or affordable it's also completely unnecessary.

Feckless Rogue wrote:It's not practical or affordable at all. We only travel twice to Italy because they promised to give us extra money in order to do so. Where is an isle of man or cornwall team going to get the money to travel around Europe? Why would the RFU fund them? If WRU did, it would be at the expense of the teams they already have. Most of the teams in the PRO12 only get small crowds and are not exactly rolling in money, as it is.

Plus we already have the B&I Cup. So as well as not being practical or affordable it's also completely unnecessary.

I agree Feckless but I am sure there are business men out there that would put money up for two years.

Feckless Rogue wrote:It's not practical or affordable at all. We only travel twice to Italy because they promised to give us extra money in order to do so. Where is an isle of man or cornwall team going to get the money to travel around Europe? Why would the RFU fund them? If WRU did, it would be at the expense of the teams they already have. Most of the teams in the PRO12 only get small crowds and are not exactly rolling in money, as it is.

Plus we already have the B&I Cup. So as well as not being practical or affordable it's also completely unnecessary.

Thats the real stomper.
it also takes away more traditional local fixtures and makes away travel almost a non starter for the club fans. More disenfranchisement.

I suspect the Regional sides would prefer their feeder clubs to be playing locally too where they can better keep an eye on players.

For what? I ask again. Why? So that Munster supporters would have two leagues to be interested in in the one year? Is there not enough interest, given the Pro12 league itself and the HC? Do people really have no homes to go to? Do they always want to be off on the plane or bus or car to yet another game involving the boys...either the big boys or the A boys?

If relegation is the deal (ie, to make Pro12 more 'competitive' ) - if that's the reason, then the problems I alluded to are still there - Munster and Munster A competing against each other (one not wanting to be relegated, one wanting promotion) - in short separating and becoming stand alone sides. Munster would then see the need to have a real A side - again! - and I begin to laugh. If the lower league has no promotion then I don't see a point considering Pro12 games in some areas can't attract a crowd already.

AlynDavies wrote:
2 Pontypridd RFC / Valleys rugby (Cardiff Blues A side)

Never in a million years Alyn plus Cardiff Blues already have an A side.
Your idea as others have pointed out is not only unaffordable and unneccessary, it would also devalue the Welsh prem at a stroke and I can't see the clubs who would be left behind being too happy about it.

I know this is a long shot but could say the top one/two club teams/Irish provinces and have them have knock out with the top 4 getting the four Italian Amlin spots. (I know it is italy who would deciede this but I'm sure we could twist their arm)

Obviously no Irish team could go in the Amlin.

Not alot of travel, and financial reward for the clubs that do well.

For everyone that says it can't/wont happen how are we ever going to get a third scottish team without them having some form somewhere.

North Wales is getting an ID and when it steps up it will be viewed as a real team not a put together region like others were

TrailApe wrote:You do realise don't you that the term 'Celt, has no real basis in history and weas invented in the 1700's and popularised in modern times as a marketing tool.

Here's a quote from the BBC history site (which unlike Wiki is more interested in facts than opinions and urban myth)

However, there is one thing that the Romans, modern archaeologists and the Iron Age islanders themselves would all agree on: they were not Celts. This was an invention of the 18th century; the name was not used earlier. The idea came from the discovery around 1700 that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really were called Celts. This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family of languages. But 'Celtic' was soon extended to describe insular monuments, art, culture and peoples, ancient and modern: island 'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th century.

It's a nice idea and a way of distancing yourself from the common herd, but by and large, the ethnicity of the people in these islands are much the same as they have always been, apart from the obvious influx of Afro-Caribean and Indian Subcontinent peoples that came out of Empire in the 1950's and onwards.


And don't get me started on England 'Saxons', possibly most innacurate name they could have picked.

Are you Scottish? Some Scots don't think of themselves as being Celts. Lowland Scots for example.

Do poachers still kill them lowland Scots or are the wardens finally doing their job right?

The native people of our islands are one race for the most of it. South east England is more none native and of the four countries England has the highest non native blood
Not just in their rugby team

We called ourselves Celts which we aren't but we are a group of people seprate of the rest of the world.

that is why most people hate South east England not just because they are richer then all of us but because they beat us and made them be like them.

Genetically, we are all a mish-mash of the endless invasions and migrations over the millennia (Bronze Age farmers, Iron Age "Celts", Romans, Germanic tribes, Vikings, Normans etc.). But the existence of a distinct "Celtic" (Iron Age) culture that was left outside Roman influence, and a distinct "Anglo Saxon" (post-Roman) culture, that was dominated by Romans, then by Germanic invaders, is obvious. It's seen in language, art, metalwork etc.

That's not to say the English are Germans. But tribes from Germany settled in south east Roman Britain after the Romans left, and their language and culture spread and absorbed the people of what today is England. And the Irish are not genetically "Celts", because there's no such thing. "Celtic" refers to the language group and culture of pre-Roman western Europe. A very small number settled in Ireland (some say around 500BC) and dominated and absorbed the previous Bronze Age inhabitants.

These distinctions don't really refer to genetics, but the language and culture that dominated different parts of the isles and survived to today.

eh, is that off topic?

We are distinctly 'Irish'. We've been here, most of us (especially in the West of Ireland from where actually me personally and many east coasters owe at least some lineage) since after the ice-age when these isalnds were repopulated. We are distinctly 'Irish' - with no need to be coy about it. Our genes, part of them are the most ancient in Europe. Other peoples in Europe migrated into it later - eastern Europeans etc.

So... who are the Celts? The Celts were actually just a tribe first named by the Greeks and later encountered by the Romans. Their European distinction, like most ethnic distinctions, was primarily, perhaps exclusively Cultural. To be a Celt is to be part of, contributor to, active decendants of a culture not a race. So when we Irish say our culture is Celtic - it is. Our myths and legends talk of Celtic gods, mimicked in Europe where Celtic culture dominated - our ancient art is Celtic influenced, we speak a version of the culturally distinct language of the Celts. So yes, Celts did and do exist and we're them - a culture not a distinct race.

People who protest the idea are generally those who like to merge cultures (for whatever reasons) rather than choose to celebrate distinctions.

Sorry Feckless...... you got there before me

Nevermind other people's points Trailape. I'm interested in yours? What's your point? That all Europeans are from the same stock? Of course we are, we're human...I hope we all have that common ancestor (although sometimes I wonder ). But to get back to the point - we're all the same in ethnical terms? The English, the French, the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh?.

SecretFly, hello there, my point is that most people are the same as they always were (if you ignore the mobility allowed to families and groups of families in the last 150 years or so - I'm thinking here of those leaving these Isles to go to the New World and more recently, peoples of the former Empire coming in) and any differences or groupings imposed on us ie on this side of the line you are Scots and on the other side of the line you are English, are artificial and in most cases have been used for either the good of those in power at the time (divide and rule) or in more modern times, for commercial reasons.


If you want to get rid of 400 surplus white togas, you dye them blue and go to a village and tell them that those people in the next village are all incestuous goat lovers who wear white togas . Just to make sure you don't get mistaken for one of them when you go into the Big Towne, here - you better wear this blue toga - that'll be two turnips - no I haven't got change of a hamster.

It seems - to get back to the theories - that most of the inhabitants of these Isles got here by drifting following the game as the last Ice age receded, some came up from the Iberian peninsula, and some came in from the main part of Europe.

Now the old theories were that these folk were then crowded into the western parts as successive waves of invaders came along, put them to the sword and kicked them off their land. However as archeologists became more professional (the early stuff was all done by wealthy amateurs) and their techniques became more advanced, the ravaging hordes theory became increasingly under question.

For instance - if there were genocides, where are all the bodies? That sounds a bit daft doesn't it, it was a long time ago and nothing would be left surely? However if they can unearth the burial pits from Stamford Bridge (1066 scuffle between Harold, his brother and the Vikings - a home win on this occasion) surely the evidence of mass graves from the invasions before that would be in evidence? So far nothing has emerged, so no smoking gun.

Also the DNA evidence is beginning to show that there are not distinct groups of people, there is a slight difference between the East and the West (of these Isles) but nothing to indicate this lot here were Picts, this lot were Scots, that lot were Gaels, these are Celts and that lot across there were Saxons.

They reckon that the main changes were at the top - the so called warrior aristocracy. One lot with better weapons and better doctrine would come along, do in the in situ headsheds and rule in their stead. No big killings - you need the peasants to work the land. The Normans are a good example. In about 150 years they replaced most of the ruling elite of Britain and Ireland. Did they kill off the peasants? Hell no - but they taxed everything that moved. Even the so called harrowing of the north (there was still armed resistance after Hastings) was done pour encorage les autres, not as an end in itself.

Of course, for the modern media, these artificial differences are like a wet dream – lets build this game up to be more than it is – let’s put some symbolism into it, this is not a game IT'S WAR! and in the main people lap it up, everybody wants to feel a little bit different and it’s no fun if you look at the ‘enemy’ and see your own face.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/peoples_01.shtml

That's the BBC site. If you go onto the web you will find all sorts of stuff, but in the main, although there are still the Genocide Invaders theorists, the trend seems to be that the people that worked the land stayed put and any changes were forced by climate not by man. Obviously this all changed as central governments power became more entrenched, and the peasants were thrown off the land in Tudor times for the landowners to make big money on wool and this process continuyed with the enclosures, the highland clearances and when the industrial revolution kicked in the ordinary folk were forced to be much more mobile. Which I suppose makes us even more homogenous.

As Feckless says it is cultural rather than racial.

There are some differences, in features though e.g. hair colour.
Definitely a higher % of people in Ireland with ginger hair than in England for example.

Clearly over time such changes have been very significantly blurred.
Not sure the evidence shows that the Angles and Saxons were not a siginificant influx of people - I think they were.

However I would agree the Romans and Normans were most definitely aristocracy only invasions.

Trailape, your arguments admit the diversity of culture (both as perhaps something that evolved and something that could be imposed politically (Empire ) Anyway, as I say, you admit the diversity of culture whilst denying the diversity of peoples. We agree to an extent, and I think I explained the extent in my earlier post.

Nevertheless, given that we're all human, and therefore all brothers technically speaking, we do still try to manage a world based on ideas of identity and ethnicity. We know we're all human - meaning us recently closely related people of Europe are in reality also related to Chinese peoples and Oceanic peoples and Native Americans and Africans. But we also need to regionalise our thought processes so that we can function as areas of the Globe (USA, Europe, South Africa etc) and indeed, so that we can enjoy ourselves - World Cup, Olympics, Eurovision!!!! *gulp*

So we base our models of who we are on time and history. Whilst you might be closely related to me - I'll still regard myself as Irish and you........... won't. Theory only goes so far, and in reality that's as far as most of us want it to go. We don't want no "perfect world" of cultureless interconnectedness. They made a start on that one in many areas of the world - Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia as two examples.

Galatians, Galicians, Gauls , Gaels, Goidels etc were all under what we today would call Celts (pronounced Kelt, not selts). They were the original Western Europeans and possibly the earliest.

Nordic tribes arrived from Russia somewhere or maybe the middle east. During the last ice age the middle east would have had a different (colder) climate, in case people are wondering.

Saxons etc were also part 'Celtic'. Holland for example is half Nordic, half Celtic. The same with Germany.

Rome was founded by Celts too at the beginning but obviously throughout the centuries they mixed more with other races. Then Rome collapsed..

Totally agree with the above posts - we are different, yet we are the same.

But surely the celtic culture was happening all over Europe, the centre being - as already stated Gaul, which is modern day France, so to say that certain parts of Europe were celtic and others were not surely must be inaccurate.

When celtic art was flourishing in western Ireland, surely it must also - whether you like it or not - have been flourishing in South East England?

Were the people that lobbed rocks on Julius Ceasar (and sent him away to think again for a year or so) Celts?. Were the grandchildren of these same people who watched Claudius' legions (and Elephants apparently) march past not celts?

And although they took to Roman rule (most of the time) like a duck to water - I mean to say - wine and baths - what's not to like, at what stage did they become non-celts?

And the people in my part ofthe world, watching the legions build a great big feckin wall (and then like all armies from time immemorial, then paint it white) when did they stop being celts?

If it was because they got new overlords (Jutes, Angles or Saxons) surely when the Irish, Scots and Welsh themselves got their own new overlords, the Normans, they then would be defrocked of their celt status also?

It was not until 664 ad that the Northumbrian church moved away from the celtic christianity and aligned itself with the practices of the Roman church, so are we saying the Northumbrians became non-celts then? However (according to wiki - so truth alert) several of the Southern Irish synods had already done the same in 630ad, so were parts of Ireland breaking away from the celtic whole?

You can't just say 'culture' and leave it that. If you look at the 'Saxon' gold that was recently found near Tamworth (which was ironically the heart of the Angle kingdom of Mercia, so don't know why it was 'Saxon') I bet that the metal work is very similair to products that are classed as celtic. The Lindisfarne Gospels are very similair to the Book of Kells, although about 100 years seperate their creation.


Or do we have a lazy version of history - it's either Saxon or Celtic, a big bold line drawn through history and on our landscape. Hereabouts be Saxons and Hereabouts be Celts. Us and them. White Togas vs Blue Togas.


I can't believe its not butter.

Yes, Trailape...Celtic culture I'm certain pervaded in England as much as it did in Ireland or Wales or Scotland. But that's the trick of Culture...so too did 'Roman' culture hold sway in England during one period of history too though I doubt any English man would regard his current 'culture' as having much to do with the Italian version.

So, the culture that survives is perhaps the most recent, depending on how invasive the most recent has been and whether or not it was adopted or imposed. Sometimes an imposed culture can be quickly dispensed with when the opportunity arises whilst the one actively pursued can last. The English are generally happy with their 'Anglo-Saxon' version of who they are. And we're pretty snug with our Celtic one. That's what I mean, we assume Cultures both because we've been influenced by them (migrations etc) but also because we like them and hold onto them.

All that aside what exactly is "Celtic" about a rugby competition? Unless you take Asterix in Britain as historical fact.

The racial and cultural identity of iron age Europeans is pretty irrelevant, what we are talking about here is how modern people define themselves by clinging to semi imagined shared histories. That goes for those who like to think of themselves as British as it does for the Celts.

what we are talking about here is how modern people define themselves

I agree with Secretfly and also with your comment PeterSbW - it's how we perceive ourselves, and its no wonder that in this frenetic modern world we pick something that is pretty safe (although the skeleton in the cupboards is who killed off the picts) long ago and fairly elastic in scope.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:All that aside what exactly is "Celtic" about a rugby competition? Unless you take Asterix in Britain as historical fact.

The racial and cultural identity of iron age Europeans is pretty irrelevant, what we are talking about here is how modern people define themselves by clinging to semi imagined shared histories. That goes for those who like to think of themselves as British as it does for the Celts.

Some people keep up the 'Celtic' bit because that's how it started out; - Irish, Welsh and Scottish sides. It's a little long-toothed to have said The Irish, Welsh, Scottish League. So you break things down. Now that Italian sides are in it, of course it means nothing but then again, from my experience, throughout the year it is generally outsiders (and might I say, English people) who compare and contrast leagues in Europe by identifying our one as the 'Celtic League' or us as 'the Celts'.

Having said all that too - saying 'Celt' is about as appropriate as saying 'Irish' or 'English'. It's how we all identify ourselves I keep saying. The 'English' are also 'British' There is no justification to the word 'Irish' over 'Celt' simply because we and the world call us Irish. It's a word, as accurate or inaccurate as any other, depending on who wants to argue with the detail.

Is this a rugby forum??? I think we'll have to get back to that or the Mods will be suggesting we should keep on message... cultureless vultures that they are!

So we're a right bunch of Celts.
Seems appropriate.

Three Celts walk into a bar.

The first one buys everyone a round with borrowed money that he can't afford to pay back.
The second one keeps his wallet zipped in his pocket and hopes nobody notices.
The third one see's somebody from his neighbouring village and tries to beat him up.

I don't know who those three guys are...but they're imposters!

Funny how 'Celts/Celtic' can be proposed as an ethnic group on a territorial basis whereas 'British Isles/British' can't be called such as it is an accepted geographic/sociological term.

Kernow and Breizh might find it a tad difficult to acknowledge and agree to the technical rule requirements of two separate league regimes, registration requirements etc.

Best the Rabo expanded in the rest of Europe. After all the rabo is no longer a Celtic league.

Portnoy wrote:Funny how 'Celts/Celtic' can be proposed as an ethnic group on a territorial basis whereas 'British Isles/British' can't be called such as it is an accepted geographic/sociological term.

Kernow and Breizh might find it a tad difficult to acknowledge and agree to the technical rule requirements of two separate league regimes, registration requirements etc.

Best the Rabo expanded in the rest of Europe. After all the rabo is no longer a Celtic league.

No, Portnoy, not on a territorial basis...on a cultural basis. That was explained above. Wales and Scotland (for now) are territorially Gr. Britain - they've still maintained their 'Celtic' identity, whilst England reserves its sense of self for the Angles (from where the name England derives) and Saxons. And there is nothing British about them lot!

Britons was the all encompassing name given to the 'Celtic' [culture again] tribes that resided on the islands that are now called Ireland and Great Britain. Yes, I'm sure much of that blood still courses through the veins of many if not most English people today - but still they don't sit so easily with the idea of themselves being Celts, now do they?

British Isles and Britishness was hijacked by a political power in England and it then forced 'unity' under the title on the other kingdoms in close proximity. It can now not be removed from its 'political' links - ie, The British State has assumed ownership of the word 'British' and therefore certainly forgive us Irish at least that we won't be addresing ourselves as 'British' anytime soon - even though we're more purely 'British' by ancient definition than many of those Britons with Angle blood in them! Complex but there you go.

Now I know I didn't have to really explain all that to you, Portnoy - or explain why we insist on the Irish bit in The British and Irish Lions, which is probably what you're alluding to. I'd much prefer The Lions but if the British like to add the British, we'll keep saying "and the Irish".

SecretFly wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Funny how 'Celts/Celtic' can be proposed as an ethnic group on a territorial basis whereas 'British Isles/British' can't be called such as it is an accepted geographic/sociological term.

Kernow and Breizh might find it a tad difficult to acknowledge and agree to the technical rule requirements of two separate league regimes, registration requirements etc.

Best the Rabo expanded in the rest of Europe. After all the rabo is no longer a Celtic league.

No, Portnoy, not on a territorial basis...on a cultural basis. That was explained above. Wales and Scotland (for now) are territorially Gr. Britain - they've still maintained their 'Celtic' identity, whilst England reserves its sense of self for the Angles (from where the name England derives) and Saxons. And there is nothing British about them lot!

Britons was the all encompassing name given to the 'Celtic' [culture again] tribes that resided on the islands that are now called Ireland and Great Britain. Yes, I'm sure much of that blood still courses through the veins of many if not most English people today - but still they don't sit so easily with the idea of themselves being Celts, now do they?

British Isles and Britishness was hijacked by a political power in England and it then forced 'unity' under the title on the other kingdoms in close proximity. It can now not be removed from its 'political' links - ie, The British State has assumed ownership of the word 'British' and therefore certainly forgive us Irish at least that we won't be addresing ourselves as 'British' anytime soon - even though we're more purely 'British' by ancient definition than many of those Britons with Angle blood in them! Complex but there you go.

Now I know I didn't have to really explain all that to you, Portnoy - or explain why we insist on the Irish bit in The British and Irish Lions, which is probably what you're alluding to. I'd much prefer The Lions but if the British like to add the British, we'll keep saying "and the Irish".

Ironicaly the name and collective identity given to them by the Romans, not themselves.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
Britons was the all encompassing name given to the 'Celtic' [culture again] tribes that resided on the islands that are now called Ireland and Great Britain.

Ironicaly the name and collective identity given to them by the Romans, not themselves.

Yes, I was conscious of pointing that out. The tribes of these islands more than likely wouldn't have understood the title of 'Briton' or 'British', much less accept they were all one happy family, which I'm sure they weren't!

Feckless Rogue wrote:Three Celts walk into a bar.

The first one buys everyone a round with borrowed money that he can't afford to pay back.
The second one keeps his wallet zipped in his pocket and hopes nobody notices.
The third one see's somebody from his neighbouring village and tries to beat him up.

SecretFly wrote:Is this a rugby forum??? I think we'll have to get back to that or the Mods will be suggesting we should keep on message... cultureless vultures that they are!

I was thinking the same thing, I looked at my topic and thought "wow 46 posts, some people may of been interested". then I read them and it's all about genetics and heritage.

Ah well I tried... though I will point out to some people that the 3 big Irish provinces all have A teams in the British Cup, and they could always take a few semi pros from the Top Irish leagues, Blackrock, Cork etc.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Three Celts walk into a bar.

The first one buys everyone a round with borrowed money that he can't afford to pay back.
The second one keeps his wallet zipped in his pocket and hopes nobody notices.
The third one see's somebody from his neighbouring village and tries to beat him up.

you forgot the punchline...

Then they all have a meeting about who is to blame for this mess, and decide the innocent Englishman in the corner is the one at fault!

I'd love to see Crosskeys play a few more meaningful games. The B&I cup is decent, giving sides like them a good test and giving a better insight into who could make the step up. Much better than the Premiership. Though hopefully this shortened Premiership will also make it a bit more similar to top level.

I know the Crosskeys lads saw the Munster A game as a massive learning experience and more games like that can only benefit them.