Rob Rowse
I read that before I even made the post you're replying to.
I recommend you read it before linking it.

I said "Not much changed (genetically) in the past 900 years (beyond mixing with other British groups), and not much even with the Normans."
And the article you linked says " Studies of DNA suggest that the biological influence on Britain of immigration from the Norman conquests up till the 20th century was small; The native population's genetics was marked more by stability than change".

I said: "Virtually all immigration (including invasion) into Britain between 0AD and 1930AD was European, most of it NW European." and the article says (1800-1945)
2,339,000. What European groups are there? Belgians, French, Germans, Hungarians, Irish, Poles, and Americans who are genetically European.
70,000 + 240,000 + 40,000 + 100,000 + 2,000 + 1,500,000 + 40,000 + 5,000 = 1,997,000
That's only 342,000 non-Europeans AT MOST. And it's 85% European immigration.
Now it obviously doesn't count that many of those don't stay.
The people who were already here had a bigger effect on our genetics, immigration prior to the 1800s was smaller, etc.

Another quote from the article:
"The overall foreign born population of Britain being 0.6% in 1851, 1.5% in 1901, many coming from Eastern Europe and Russia."

On the other hand, what DOESN'T the article say?
It DOESN'T say there was some mythical level of migration prior to the 19th century, that the country was always less than 80% British, that London was always less than 50% British, etc. You believe in a fairytale that England was "diverse" before the 1940s.