If English, Scottish and Irish people are Romans and Celtics and Vikings, then that must make them Italian?

Question

Italian from the Roman part. Is this true?

Answer 1

No. The latinate elements of the English language are more due to the influence of Medieval Latin (the lingua franca of the middle ages) and Norman French (a heavily Romance (Latin) language) than the distant influence of the relatively brief era of Roman rule.

As for the people, Italians are not the same as Romans. Italians are *partially* decended from the Romans, but there has also been a fair influx of settlers/conquerors in the past 2000 years on the Italian pennisula as well (albeit, not quite as *much* as the British Isles experienced). So even if more ethnic Romans (as opposed to Roman citizens - there is a difference you should explore) had settled in Britainnia during the days of the Empire, they're decendents would still be different from Italians.

And frankly, far more Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Danes, both "dark" and "white" Norwegians (to use a 10th century Irish distinction), and Normans settled the Islands, in addition to the previous Celtic, Pict and pre-historic settlers, than there ever were Romans.

Answer 2

Not really. Most British (English, Scots, and Irish) have strong Celtic blood, mostly.
England has more Anglo-Saxon blood, the Scottish Highlands have a bit of Norse blood, but overall, all of the Brits are pretty much related to each other.
Roman genes didn't spread much. When the Romans came, they simply administrated Britain, Romanized it. Sure, there must have been Roman-Celt relations, of course (including rapes) but the Roman population in Britain was quite small.

Answer 3

No. The Romans may have conquered Britain but it conquered most of the know world as well. It didn't repopulate every country with Italians. It just governed.
The Romans never reached Ireland

Answer 4

English.