Talk:Rupert's Land

Owned for 200 years by HBC

Where did this information come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.123.84 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruprecht's Land

I removed "Ruprecht's Land" from the article, as a cursory search turned up no hints for the term. I am guessing the person who included did so because Prince Rupert of the Rhine was Ruprecht von der Pfalz to the Germans, and therefore concluded Rupert's Land must also have called Ruprecht's Land. But I find no evidence that this is true in English. It's not enough to say that the person's names were the same, therefore it applied to the land as well. -- Decumanus 17:24, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Cost?

Does anyone know how much it was sold to Canada for? I remember learning it in high school. Considering it was the largest real estate deal in history, perhaps it's a good thing to know how much money was spent. - Darkhawk (11 Mar, 2006 @ 13:49 EST)

Rupert's Land Act of 1868, £300,000.00 (in 1870-value pound sterling). --chris 21:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

it was sold to canada for £300,000.00 not that much in todays standards

Law section

The first paragraph of this section seems to be an account of someone's history thesis about the legal culture of the region. It may be of interest to other historians, but it seems starkly out of place here. I proposed deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.56.42 (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's written in lingua-po-mo too (pompous bollocks) a sure sign it deserves deleting24.203.176.27 (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"New Britain"?

I find this area referred to as "New Britain" here and there in 18th- and 19th-c. sources, but it's not clear to me how widespread the use of that name was--i.e., should it go in the article?

Examples:

"Description of New Britain," Town & Country Magazine, or, Universal Repository of Knowledge, Instruction & Entertainment (Jan. 1, 1776). Excerpt: "New Britain, or the country lying around Hudson's Bay, and commonly called the country of the Esquimaux ... is bounded by unknown lands about the pole on the north; by the Atlantic Ocean and Baffin's Bay on the east," by the St. Lawrence, etc.

This is clearly a reference to all of Canada, but then there's this (available on Google Books): "We ought therefore to put ourselves right from the beginning, and, whilst devising and maturing our plans of land-settlement, we ought at once to invite and urge and co-operate with our own Government, with the view of transforming Rupert's Land, in the first instance at least, into a Crown Colony — the beginning of the 'New Britain' of the West." --James Dodds, Hudson's Bay Company, Its Position and Prospects, with Map (1866). AdRock (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. New Britain was short-lived in its use here, mostly before it was named Rupert's land, and occasionally when the author of the text did not have proper knowledge of the lands history and names. -GameLoRDz (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

  It was as if he had no knowledge at all. The Coat of Arms they gave was Elizabeths. When Elizabeth was NOT the Constitutional Monarch. The Constitutional Processes and Procedures were created by Queen Mary Stuart by the 1662 Constituency of England and Scotland Constituting the Founding Authority of the Constitutional Crown of United Kingdom. It was also Queen Mary Stuart who created the Constitutional Parliamemt with King William of Orange. Neither the British nor Elizabeth held Claims. It was KING Robert Stuart whom authorized Elizabeth to sit in instruction of The Parliamemt The Stuart Vrest is the Lion and the Dragon. It is in fact still the SEAL of the Constitutional Parliamemt. The Author who wrote the Wikipedia Canada page lied and Committed fraud and unauthorized use of the Flag of Canada. Which was designed and created by King Robert Stuart. 50.108.67.110 (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This could use some reference were it to be included in the article. It's notable commentary, certainly. I find the way royal crests are created, vested, and used to be interesting. It's not common knowledge and easily misconstrued. It is certainly relevant to Rupert's Land.

To state that "The Author who wrote the Wikipedia Canada page lied and Committed fraud and unauthorized use " is likely to confuse the author's intent.

ProofCreature (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Considering it’s a farrago of nonsense, reliable sources will be hard to come by. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Bias and Simplicity Underlying the Entire Article

This article is downright drunk with bias. Obviously written by Whig-minded historians, an outdated approach to history, even to those of European descent. European based peoples just because they are white no longer write as if they are the centre of the universe. To declare as plain fact that Rupert's Land was ruled over by the Hudson's Bay Company according to whatever Charter the British government gave it is embarrassingly simplistic even for a lead section. The tag line that some Aboriginal groups disputed this (notice the lack of any real Nation names, a cliche rhetorical device used by the Whigs to remove complex reality) stands more as a cheap bone then any sophisticated understanding. This article needs to be written in the neutral perspective if it is going to stand up to modern historical standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baumgaertner (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Explanation of revert

Hi, @ProofCreature. Would you please explain this edit? Indefatigable (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not that editor, and cannot explain the wholesale revert, but I do think that WP:ACROCLUTTER is good guidance here. I can't see how it helps the reader to use "HBC" instead of "Hudson's Bay Company" (certainly not when scanning quickly). – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 19:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Indefatigable, I apologize for not giving an explination at the time I made the reversion.

I share the reasoning given by The Fiddly Leprechaun. Acronyms often obfuscate as much as they save on time.

While it's nice to think one has a secret code or insider knowledge that comes with acronyms (and other slang) using them doesn't help other readers. They are mostly valid within the institution they are describing by people who speak the phrase multiple times each day. To anyone else the full name is more useful as it imparts more information.

ProofCreature (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I can see your point. Indefatigable (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)