It is a famous case that the name of Saxony ought to have been left to Brunswick and thenceforth what became Hanover, but that Thuringia was given the Saxon name--Thuringians thereby suffocated by a name they didn't identify with. Transylvanians are called Saxons likewise with the same misidentification, whereas only England rightfully represented the names both of government and folk in places like Essex, Middlesex, Sussex and Wessex. Those who settled New England and drew their line in the sand against Charles I claimed to have freed themselves from Norman yoke in the name of Saxon ancestors, instituting the English Commonwealth and Protectorate in the guise of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union before the Constitution was ratified. Rhetorical claims that Loyalists were slaves by remaining in the Empire, is how the Irish Republic has presented things since then.

Who are the rightful heirs of the English and Irish names, since the Tudors unwisely left their realms to the Stewarts/Stuarts in Auld Alliance with the Valois and Bourbons to be a supposedly better avenue than the Habsburgs? English maybe preferred the Dutch of Nassau and Germans of Calenberg to either side formerly expected of the folk by unrepresentative government. If the English could have Cromwell and Washington stand up for the folk, what point is there in having a constitutional monarchy outsourced to this purpose, when the Imperial Commonwealth takes into consideration the causes of non-Anglos as equal voices to the Anglo, due to the nature of Britishness incorporating Scots as purported equals? Before the Union, only Anglo interests were to matter, but having Scots as juniors was better than them always nipping at the heels. Other identity crises are whether the Union or Confederacy and whether West Virginia or Virginia properly stand as heirs to the identities they claim solely theirs.

On a related matter, what about Norway and Iceland? Does Norway represent Norwegians better than Iceland? Could Icelanders better symbolise the Norwegians as they'd prefer to be? The Sagas stated how free Northfolk fled the advance of Fairhair's men and rebuilt what they believed was true Norway in Iceland, but couldn't escape Harald's scions. Who are the true Norwegians? Is Norway but a civic nation, if merely a tributary state in imitation of Denmark and Sweden, when not reflecting Norse ideals? Aren't the remnants in Scandinavia proper, somehow unwilling collaborators with the very overlords who took from them what they in Iceland preserved? This is their own rhetoric to imply a purity that I admit my forefathers mustn't have shared in terms to do with point of view, being that my lineage was from the Oslo area, not the fjords or even Trøndheim. If Oslo is a homebrewed version of what the Danes and Swedes imposed from afar, does this adaptation shield or bring ill repute by distortion of the folks? I've already stated my reluctance to accept the Icelandic purity argument about my forefathers in Viken as less than them 'true Norwegians in exile', but certainly understand and appreciate why they feel that way.

I concede forks in the roads whereby two sides of the coins tell of their place without any mutual exclusion, to extrapolate my distinctly original synthetic opinion without any specific prejudice apart from one deliberately held aloof. There's no cognitive dissonance in my opinion, as partisans of a joint heritage cannot be wholesome in the absence of a full account. Then again, I abjure any inclination for denying or obfuscating the differences between the parties. It's understandable that others may disagree with the caution to hear both sides in a dispute, but I'm prepared to facilitate the expression of any biases wherein some have a personal stake on these issues. Is there no room for both within a common framework, if they can live with each other's inclinations to be true to themselves at least? Who can rightly take sides if believing that there should be inclusion of all of the blood? Is it absolutely imperative that anyone forsake his specific stake in courses of events for some lofty and fleeting neutrality bereft of directly tangible meaning, or do Indo-Germanic and Germanic have more than theoretical substance in comparison with English and German or Icelandic and Norwegian?

I've been mocked for devil's advocacy about English and German brotherhood coming to terms from a common root, but what of Icelandic and Norwegian reunion? What's so insurmountable to prevent West Germanics and/or North Germanics from putting aside pettiness in the interest of what were once fairly identical North-West Germanic aspirations? If congeniality for mutual goals is scorned, then what's wrong with selfish nationalism? No approach is well worth it to everyone and this keeps me open to all possibilities, although it's perfectly fine for others to revel in their own bigotries. Am I merely indecisive and waffling by a noncommittal mutability, indifferent to the self-assurances by those adamant about their own positions and that my shifting sands are of little worth? I believe in everyone having their own prerogative and yet, the principle is not reciprocated by my critics. It's not I who's felt strongly about including or excluding others, only entertain contradiction for the sake of argument in the spirit of understanding all facets until the cows come home. If others have strident preconceptions, it's my curiosity to challenge their veracities and decide for myself, rather than be spoonfed dogmas and propagandas mindlessly and spinelessly for regurgitating and imitating.

Is it foolhardy or courageous to take the middle ground? Is it safe to be a wallflower with real vested purpose in what ideologues say and what demagogues do? Thomas More tried his best to be both honest and loyal unto the very end. I've even recently been fired from a company in which I'd been employed nigh seven years, just for hearing out two sides of the Antifa and Alt-Right crowds agitating for race war and all I hoped was to mollify the tensions for the purpose of discussing common musical enthusiasm in the vacuum of a radio playing overhead. I couldn't outright take either side when being utterly diplomatic in the workplace. Making fun of BLM and 'All Lives Matter' in the same breath triggered those without any serious work ethic but hanging by threads and I was discarded by HR for trying to keep the peace as well as inspire better behaviour in my workplace for mutual enrichment. I've fared little better online with fanatics for not taking seriously just how much foaming at the mouth is supposed to be making me fall in line and at others' feet, rather than valuing and practicing some measure of self-determination.

I sincerely would hope that others find some peace of mind and surpass such obstacles in today's trying times. My patience is seaworthy but exasperation with the basic instincts of others diminishes my concern for a better future. If I cannot count on others, at least I will be able to look at a reflection without turning away in disgust. Yes, I can be vilified and still be content for trying, no less than had I been complimented--makes little difference when seeking neither outcome from anyone but personal satisfaction. Who lives for the whims of others' perceptions about us and/or our true senses of being on this earth? Is it not right for us to go our own ways, like the words to a Fleetwood Mac song? Whose chain is broken when a man betrays himself for saving a face that's a mask for the sakes of others anyway? People are going to frame you no matter who you are and what position you take, whether or not you even identify with them and theirs, regardless of how seriously such are taken by me in being tamed as if a lion. What's the point of caring about it, aside from acknowledging how one is brutalised depends upon the fancies of others at any given moment?