Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kellynla

Unlikely and debatable. If you know your history, Scotland did not exist at the time of St Patricks birth - it was known as Caledonia by the Romans and inhabited by the Picts. The Irish Scots tribe did not invade from Ireland and give their name to this region until the 6th century. Thus, even if St Patrick was born in Kilpatrick, which many doubt, it was not Scottish at the time, therefore he was not Scottish. Caledonia was not colonised by the Romans yet St Patricks name, Patricius is clearly of Roman-British descent, something which would be very unlikely in Celtish caledonia at the time.

So, we can conclude that he defintely wasn't Irish, definitely wasn't Scottish, but that he was probably of Romano-British stock and given his name, he was likely to be from below Hadrians wall rather than above it.


27 posted on 03/20/2006 9:49:18 AM PST by Vectorian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: Vectorian

"Unlikely and debatable?" to only you maybe
"even if St Patrick was born in Kilpatrick, which many doubt." many doubt?

I never said St. Patrick was Scottish.

Kilpatrick is in Scotland
It sure as hell isn't in England! LMAO

gezzzzz what is it with you people on FR;
why can't you just say "I stand corrected" and move on...


32 posted on 03/20/2006 10:25:54 AM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson