Is there a reason people are removing the place designation "New England"?

Question

I've noticed recent increased activity in people removing the place designation "New England" from profiles pre-1776 in the New England area. It is a perfectly good and valid "use their conventions not ours" (read a few wills from the time period). Is there a reason for doing this that I don't know about? I know it's not used in the Family Search database, but that doesn't mean it should be removed, when it's been added.

Comments

Couple of questions on this:

1. Was New England ever a legal geopolitical designation for the area?

2. If the individual colony is known and is in the location field, is the term "New England" not redundant? Kind, of like saying Iowa, United States, North America?

3. Just because someone loves a place because it is special to them, does that justify its inclusion in a location field? I love the Ottawa Valley. Its a special place to me, but I would not think of putting it in the place name on a profile.

Just wondering.

---

Hi John, Scroll down a few answers to where I've included the section of a will to see how New England is used. It was used this way in all the colonies, in what is now the geographic region New England.

A while back we had this huge discussion about what to call the colonies. Lots of people thought we needed a broader name like a country name. New England is used on lots of pre-1776 documents.

---

I'm inclined to believe that since the English colonists were under sovereign rule, the monarch really didn't care what names the emigrants used for the settlements in North America; and referenced them by the geographical area such as New England Colonies, Midland Colonies, and Southern Colonies.  After all the Brits primary goal was to expand their trade routes, along with growing their Empire.

---

I saw that Anne.However the location is fully defined before New England.Therefore is it not redundant?

Just to explain where I am coming from. I firmly agree with the Wikitree standards of using the conventions of the time, ie the language and names of the area for the particular time period. However I also am a firm believer in standards and one of those, to my mind, should be a single way of describing any particular geopolitical entity at a particular time. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is the ability to do searches based on a geopolitical area and not miss data because someone liked another way of calling the place. For instance if we are going to include county on the name of the county, then that should be the standard, same for "township" and "parish." A typical place where I run into this all the time is England, where some of the counties include the appendage "shire", like Yorkshire and others sometimes do and sometimes don't, like Devon and Devonshire. A good search algorithm should pick up both, but that does not always happen. There are other reasons as well,but perhaps it is just my engineer's sense of order that says there should be a one "best practice" way of doing things.

---

The idea of profile managers being able to lock all profiles they manage seems completely contrary to Wikitrees objectives and smacks more of a sense of ownership rather than mangement..

---

Your point is interesting - I probably wouldn't think to use New England in a search.

How about from King Charles II, himself.

"We have given and granted, and by these presents for Us, Our Heirs and Successors, do give and grant unto the said Governor and Company of the English Colony of Connecticut, in New England, in America" The 1662 Connecticut Charter.

The use of America was argued against because there is a North America and a South America.

Honestly, If folks don't want to use New England that's fine, and my question never advocated that it should be used. But I find the constant changing names back and forth rather bothersome. I manage these profiles or I never would have noticed and/or cared.

---

The drop-down list here is coming from FamilySearch (as stated in other threads on G2G). Personally I will use it as a reference to try to determine the name I want to enter, but only as a reference or starting point to determine the proper name of the place, bearing in mind that said list is computer generated by their software.

As far as I am aware, there is no individual or group at FS who sit down and determine the "standard" place names. Their software generates that list based at least partly on what FS patrons have entered into the various fields in the past. Thus there are many name errors, omissions, ambiguous names as well as multiple entries for the same place.I have had numerous times where the software has refused to enter a place name that I know is right for the language and time period. This is especially frustrating since their software seems to not like villages within a township in certain areas like southern Ontario..

FS's "standard name" is probably a step in the right direction, but like their indexing accuracy, leaves a lot to be desired.

---

Yes the drop down list can be frustrating. You can turn it off. The link is written in small letters, below the Death Place field "hide place name suggestions". Having been here before the list, I will say that for current times it is definitely helpful. I used to have to google practically every town I entered to find the county. So better than the no list before

---

I can understand your frustration Anne, which is why I believe that Wikitree standards should be tightened down to a single way of doing things wherever possible. I participated in a discussion about standards concerning the use of the suffix field. Unfortunately one gentleman took exceptional umbrage to my suggestions and resorted to name-calling when I didn't agree with his propositions.

I guess the thing to remember is that most people making these sorts of changes are well-meaning (like myself: I've made a few goofs in my short time as a DD). The few that are simply "My way or the highway" types generally self-destruct after a while (although there always seem to be others ready to step in and take their place, sigh!)

---

Agreed! As I said, the list is a good first step, but should not be regarded as "gospel"

Answer 1

My guess is that it "New England" is only a name of region, and is actually ambiguous. Currently it comprises of 6 different states. Before Independence, they were different colonies.

Personally I would do my best to eschew the use of "New England" in favor of a more specific colony name or state name, where sources are specific enough.

But that's just my opinion.

Comments

I'm using more specific. the town, county (where appropriate), colony name and New England.

---

I would suggest that ending it at the colony name is sufficient. "New England" was never a formal governmental name, and only the name of a broad region. 

According to the Wikipedia article about New England, there was at one point an "administrative union" of New England (Dominion of New England), but it was imposed from the outside, and was apparently unpopular.

I still suggest dropping the use of New England. It would be like today if we used "Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon, Pacific Northwest".  A regional name does not describe an official political / governmental unit with clear boundaries.

But again, this is just my opinion, and why I may not use such a designation.

---

I don't know much about either history or geography, but Britain had lots of colonies, which led to the cliché about the sun never setting on their empire.  The term "New England" seems to me a very useful way to group some specific colonies that had much in common - contiguous location, common language, and populated by descendants of people who came from a common country, in addition to being controlled by a common country (there were other European countries that also had colonies in North America at the time).  There are also clear boundaries and I believe that England (which I believe everyone is willing to accord the classification of country) viewed these colonies as a group, whether or not it was "official".  Finally, Anne's point about the WikiTree policy of using "their conventions, not ours" pretty well nails it.

---

Arguments can be made in the other direction too. The colonists never saw themselves as "New England". That term was imposed on them from the outside. There was never an official governmental entity called "New England", but there are official governments of the individual colonies. Adding "New England" to the location does not add any information that wasn't already there in the colony name itself. Again, using the argument of potentially using other regional names, e.g. "Midwest", "US South", "Mid-Atlantic", "Pacific Northwest", is just non-sensical. Why should we accord the privilege to only 6 of the states / colonies?

---

Eric, I read wills, a lot. Pre 1776 wills in New England typically say I john Smith of Town, Colony of ___, New England ...  They thought of themselves as Englishmen living in New England. It was not imposed on them, it is how they thought of themselves.

Further I did not intend this to be a debate about whether someone finds New England appropriate or not. My question was "Is there a reason for doing this (removing New England) that I don't know about?"

---

I think it is a perfectly valid term, used at the time. ( edt as seen last answer sorry if I am adding to a debate )

Just put in New England into the National Archives (in England) search engine , There are thousands of references to New England .Lots of  people who described themselves in wills as 'of New England'  (a couple of examples will of PHIPPS, Sir William, kt, of Boston, New England, Will of Benjamin Fen of Milford Connecticut, New England )

There are maps,  documents, articles on it's governance and papers relating to the charter of the New England Company.

---

I have to disagreed with Eric's comment, that the name was imposed. Like Anne, I have read many wills which use the geographical term New England, to name the place where they live.

---

I think the key here is Eric's first words that indicate he is basing his opinion that "New England" is an incorrect term on a "guess that it "New England" is only a name of region, and is actually ambiguous".

My previous statement, based purely on my intuition, offers a refutation on an equally unauthoritative basis, but I now see statements supporting my belief that are offered here by not only Anne, whose knowledge of the region during the relevant time frame and integrity as a genealogist are both unimpeachable, but also by two more members whose vast knowledge also often leaves me gaping in aweful (make sure you don't confuse that with "awful", please) admiration.

---

The Dominion of New England is a fascinating subject that is often overlooked in American colonial history.

Answer 2

For what it's worth, there was a treatise here a few months ago on the subject of colonial place names, and a free-space page that linked to tables of place names in pre-1776 U.S. and Canada.  I don't think it represents official policy, but some may go by it:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Colonial_American_Place_Names

Comments

There is a mistake in the canadian places...

The territory was called Nouvelle-France until 1663.

From 1663 to 1763 Quebec territory was called Canada, Nouvelle-France.

From 1763 to 1791 it was Province of Quebec

The spreadsheet should be corrected.

---

That's been a great reference since it was published last year. Thanks for reminding us, Dennis.

Not to throw this into a tangent or foment additional debate, but something I've struggled with is what to use for a place name if the pre-1776 ancestor is known not to have been an immigrant, to have been born here, but the actual colony or location of birth has never been identified. I have a few of these.

We've already confirmed "British North America" is right-out and should never be used.

Barry uses the term "Colonial Era America" on that resource page, but contemporary to English colonies in what is now the eastern seaboard of the U.S., colonial activities were afoot in North America, Central America, and South America, and by colonial powers ranging from the Dutch to the Spanish. So that doesn't seem a good catch-all designator.

Wikipedia titles its article "Thirteen Colonies," then subdivides them into the New England Colonies, the Middle Colonies, and the Southern Colonies. "The Thirteen Colonies" doesn't seem a great choice, either...especially since the 13th colony wasn't formed until 1732, leaving a hundred-year period when there weren't 13 colonies.

I admit I've simply been using "New England," and recognize that it probably isn't the best option. If for no other reason than we have over half of the colonies nowhere near what we would, today, think of as the New England area.

Still a conundrum to me. It's very much pertinent that these people were born on this continent, that they didn't emigrate, but making a wild guess about the colonial entity in which they were born seems almost as bad. Explicable in a biography box, but what to put in the the field for birth place...

---

As Anne notes, the place name New England appears in many early documents from.the region that is now Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, and part of Long Island. Sometimes no colony was identified.

It's frustrating to have valid sourced information "corrected" by self-important data-doctor types chugging through numerous profiles to make them conform to a misconception.

I'm not aware of places like Virginia ever having been called New England (but I have no ancestry there). Didn't they have other names?

---

Why use the term 'self-important'? Data doctors are a lot of the glue that holds our common ancestry in a more perfect union. It is a largely thankless job, so people do not do it for ego reasons.

Wikitree needs to evolve to canonical location descriptions. If there is a hole in our location canon, let's fix it. Perhaps some terms in the complete formal description, such as New England, should be optional. If it is in the canon, do not remove it. If it isn't included in the place designator, don't add it.

---

I was not aware that we had a canon of place names. Please advise where it may be found.

In the meantime, I suggest that Data Doctors, of whom I am one, should neither add nor remove "New England" when editing pre-1776 profiles.

Answer 3

Anne B - I entirely agree with you. Per the "use their conventions not ours" policy of wikitree, using "New England" is entirely appropriate. Anyone who has read wills or other original legal documents from the colonial period knows that it was very common for the documents to use "New England" to describe where the person lived.

Comments

Heck, even today I say I live in Maine and they ask where that is. I say New England and they know. Many people think everything above New York is the State of New England. LOL

Answer 4

New England is an incorrect term as relates to a place name. Using it would be like saying Illinois, Midwest, or Georgia, South. It falls in the same category as British Colonial America.

Comments

That's valid now, Bob, but from all the previous discussion in this thread I am convinced that New England was most definitely a valid place then - meaning pre-revolution.

---

With Gaile, using it now makes no sense whatever. I would use some variation of USA after the revolution. But please look at the image bearing in mind, use their conventions not ours

Can be seen larger https://www.wikitree.com/photo.php/a/a2/ABGE-133.jpg

---

For the little that it is worth, my opinion, as an historian too, is that for pre-1776 "New England" is the '''best available''' term to complement the town, county (when applicable) and colony geographical reference for profiles of people alive in what are now the states of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.  It was used contemporaneously (I have read many such wills) AND it refers to England as the mother country, so therefore eliminates doubt even in a non-American reader.  I only wish that other areas in what are now these "United States" had such a good pre-1776 geographical title.  Alas, they do not, so we end up with "English Colony of...." or just "XXXX Colony" and leave it at that.

To me the only reason I can understand why some members are deleting "New England" from profiles is that the term is not recognized by the FamilySearch list and therefore somehow "wrong".  

As this is a Wiki site, we always will have these problems and thus, ultimately, there will always be a "mix" of terms used.  History, politics and even changes in ethnic group majority-rule have made how we name where we live (or where our ancestors lived) a huge "Babel" and it is pointless, IMHO, to think that any Wiki site will ever have 100% consensus about it.  

I do wish, perhaps naïvely, that whenever members change what is already on a profile, especially if it's not managed by them or a direct ancestor, that they would SPELL OUT THE REASONS for Their Changes so others could understand why and either agree or respond with their own arguments.  But as I say, perhaps that too is impossible here.  Onwards and Upwards... Vive! the One World Tree...

Answer 5

I have no idea of any valid reason to remove New England from the location field. I have a few marriage records from outside that area were the only description for the spouse’s origin is New England, removing that would leave a blank location.  Unlike the short lived East Virginia, New England is commonly understood because it was in use for so long. Although it is thought of as just a region today back then it mean more.