Danes and English are almost half-brothers from another mother

[Creoda]

https://www.genetics.org/content/204/2/711

Figure 3B and Table S2 show that the Swedish, Norwegian, and British clusters made the most substantial contribution to the ancestry profiles of all six Danish groups, jointly accounting for 82.05–97.12% of the total admixture. The Scandinavian component (Swedish and Norwegian clusters together) surprisingly accounted for less than half of the total admixture (range: 41.69–48.96%), on a par with the British component (40.37–48.16%), which peaked in South Jutland. Interestingly, the contribution of the Swedish cluster alone (27.45–30.20%) was almost twice as large as that of the Norwegian cluster (14.24–18.76%). This difference could be explained by the reduced landscape connectivity between Norway and Denmark, affecting gene flow patterns. It is also striking that the German cluster had little genetic influence on Denmark (3.04–6.78%), despite the proximity and historically fluid borders between the two countries. However, the latter observation could be due to the marginally higher genetic affinity of Denmark with Britain, which could result in prioritizing British over German samples in the initial chromosome-painting step of our analysis. Similarly, the French component was present at small yet considerable portions (4.16–5.42%) in all Danish regions except for Funen and South Jutland. Finally, it is worth noting that there was a small Polish contribution to Zealand (6.28%) and Funen (5.03%).

In general, the study of admixture within the European continent is confounded by a well-grounded isolation-by-distance mechanism (Lao et al. 2008; Novembre et al. 2008), as well as an increased historical complexity that renders most admixture models unrealistically simple (Busby et al. 2015). Denmark is no exception to these caveats. Even though it is tempting to explain the admixture proportions in Figure 3 and Figure 4 as the result of historical admixing events, an alternative approach is to interpret such proportions as “mixture profiles.” Bearing this in mind, we see that the mixture profiles of all six Danish groups comprise two major ancestry components, one predominant in Scandinavia and the other predominant in Central Europe (Figure 4). In the GLOBETROTTER analysis, these two components were identified as admixture contributions from the Swedish/Norwegian and the British clusters (Figure 3B and Table S2). In regard to the British contribution, however, this is actually more likely to reflect admixture in the opposite direction, i.e., from Denmark to Britain (Leslie et al. 2015).

Danes are paternally mostly descended from North Germanic speaking proto-Danes, and maternally from West Germanic Angles and Saxons. English are paternally mostly Anglo-Saxon + Danish Viking, and maternally British/Welsh.

Icelanders and Irish are similarly almost like half-brothers from another father.

[♥ Lily ♥]

Are the Dutch similar too?

[Creoda]

Are the Dutch similar too?

The Dutch on average plot autosomally between English and Danes, so of course.

[dududud]

The Dutch on average plot autosomally between English and Danes, so of course.

Not my father!

[billErobreren]

Don't forget the Jutes also, they would've left a bigger dent in Denmark than the Angles and Low Saxons, since most of their turf now lies in the German side, along with Dannevirke and Hedeby. By all accounts though; Jutes they would've spoken a dialect that wasn't too far withdrawn from Frisian or Old Saxon. Jutes also made their way to old Albion but in lesser numbers, mostly in Wight(last spot that practised Anglo-Saxon heathenry) and Kent. There weren't any proto-Danes. Danes always had that name, just that one tribe that was close to the Swedes, concentrated between Skaane and Sjælland, they'd subjugate Jylland, as Swedes did Geatland and Gotland. Danes became known as Danes in the same the English became known as English not accounting for the Saxons, Frisians and Jutes, that were also in England.

Are the Dutch similar too?

Too similar, genetically and also culturally, I've always seen them both as first cousins to me. The English and Dutch look like siblings that went to different boarding schools, if you listen to spoken Dutch you'll understand a greater deal than with Frisian, ironically. English and Frisian are both akin to Low Saxon whereas Dutch is Frankish but they seemed to have transitioned at a likely pace. English sentence stucture is closer to Norse though. It began when Danelaw started to grow and Danish kings would often claim and take the English throne. You'd see Norse words like: "knife" and "window" come into the English lexicon(Da: kniv, vindu). In German they'd be "messer" and "fernster?"(I forget how to spell that) Harold as the last Anglo-Saxon king was half Danish, such hybridisations were pretty common in England then.

[CordedWhelp]

Don't forget the Jutes also, they would've left a bigger dent in Denmark than the Angles and Low Saxons, since most of their turf now lies in the German side, along with Dannevirke and Hedeby. By all accounts though; Jutes they would've spoken a dialect that wasn't too far withdrawn from Frisian or Old Saxon. Jutes also made their way to old Albion but in lesser numbers, mostly in Wight(last spot that practised Anglo-Saxon heathenry) and Kent. There weren't any proto-Danes. Danes always had that name, just that one tribe that was close to the Swedes, concentrated between Skaane and Sjælland, they'd subjugate Jylland, as Swedes did Geatland and Gotland. Danes became known as Danes in the same the English became known as English not accounting for the Saxons, Frisians and Jutes, that were also in England.



Too similar, genetically and also culturally, I've always seen them both as first cousins to me. The English and Dutch look like siblings that went to different boarding schools, if you listen to spoken Dutch you'll understand a greater deal than with Frisian, ironically. English and Frisian are both akin to Low Saxon whereas Dutch is Frankish but they seemed to have transitioned at a likely pace. English sentence stucture is closer to Norse though. It began when Danelaw started to grow and Danish kings would often claim and take the English throne. You'd see Norse words like: "knife" and "window" come into the English lexicon(Da: kniv, vindu). In German they'd be "messer" and "fernster?"(I forget how to spell that) Harold as the last Anglo-Saxon king was half Danish, such hybridisations were pretty common in England then.

I've currently been looking more into the Jutes and their contributions to modern Danes. I find it weird how so few find Jutes to be interesting; they would likely have been prior to adopting Danish and becoming Danishized, a North Sea/Ingvaeonic people in Scandinavia. If history played out a touch differently, we could have had an even more interesting Denmark.

An interesting tidbit; I have heard it said that the South Jutlandic dialect of Danish (It and Bornholmsk being really the only true modern day Danish dialects, as everything else is Standard Danish or slightly regionalized forms of Standard Danish) sounds like a cross between Frisian and Danish, and spoken with a Scottish-like accent. I find it very reasonable that this dialect is made distinct MAINLY due to preserving more elements of this older Ingvaeonic layer than other dialects. Perhaps later Low Germans influenced it as well? I'm not an expert linguist, so maybe someone can correct me or add on to what I am saying.

By the way, I'm part Jute myself. Most of my Danish ancestry is Jutish, more from the southwest I believe.

[Creoda]