Jump to content

Talk:Annapolis Royal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move

I propose to move Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia to Annapolis Royal. The move meets the criteria at the naming convention at WP:CANSTYLE, the town is the primary use, and Annapolis Royal already redirects here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, so done. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Port Royal

[edit]

Port Royal is not part of the town of Annapolis Royal .19960401 21:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

In the sense that it is Annapolis Royal? or in the sense that it was somewhere else? — LlywelynII 03:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both locations are shown on this map. You will notice a clear distance between Annapolis Royal (Fort Anne) and the French settlement (Habitation at Port-Royal). These two sites are even separated by the Annapolis River. The Port-Royal National Historic Site (map) is located on the northern shore of the Annapolis Basin, while Annapolis Royal is located on the south bank of the Annapolis River. The settlemant Charles Fort/Scots Fort (along with Fort Anne) was established by the British on the south bank of the Annapolis River in 1629. Three years later, in 1632, the French took control over the place renaming it into Port-Royal. In 1710, the place was renamed by the British into Annapolis, now Annapolis Royal.
The confusion around the place name probably originates from the fact that in the beginning the French applied the proper noun Port Royal not to a specific site but to the Annapolis Basin as a whole. Obviously, the French considered the mouth of the river a natural harbor (port). This could explain why the term Port Royal is only mentioned in the caption of a map from the Annapolis Basin drawn by M. Lescarbot in 1609. On the map itself, however, you won't find a place bearing that name: Lescarbot's map from 1609. Several forts and settlements are depicted but none of them showing the above mentioned name. On the northern shore of the basin, next to the location of the present-day Port-Royal National Historic Site, a settlement named 'Portric-court' [?] is depicted. Perhaps this place and Habitation at Port-Royal are in fact the same.
On the south bank of the Annapolis River fortifications are visible on top of an elevation, now Annapolis Royal. These fortifications are called by the French 'Hautfort' (or something like that).
So from this it's quite obvious to me that neither the 'Habitation at Port-Royal' from 1605 nor the proper name Port Royal used for the Annapolis Basin on the French map from 1609 are pointing to the eponymous settlement 'Port Royal', established by the French in 1632 on the spot of Charles Fort/Fort Anne. In 1710, following the Siege of Port Royal, this place along with the river was renamed by the British into Annapolis, in honour of the reigning monarch, Queen Anne.
IMO, the objection made above by 19960401 is correct.--91.61.126.171 (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of the above mentioned reasons the article sentence "Today's Annapolis Royal evolved from the 1605 French settlement of Port Royal (briefly Charlesfort)" is not correct.
The settlement of Port Royal (1632-1710) evolved from the settlement Charles Fort/Scots Fort (1629-1632).
The settlement of Port Royal (1632-1710) has nothing in common with the settlement called Habitation at Port Royal (1605-?). These settlements were located at different sites being separated by the Annapolis River.--91.61.126.171 (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any robust primary evidence that the French settlement on the Annapolis Basin ever used “Port Royal” as proper place name referring exclusively to the dwellings around the habitation built in 1605 or the fort built in 1629. This seems to be an interpretation starting in the late 19th century. On the contrary, the primary evidence I can find when “Port Royal” is used a proper noun is either:
- the Annapolis Basin itself. As written by Champlain in 1604 and again shown on his map of 1613 (the map from Lescarbot dated 1609 is partially fantasy, most of the features are NOT supported either by documentary or archeological evidence), or
- the seigneury. The seigneury covered a large area, as evidenced by the 17th century censuses of the period, and included the farms settled by the Melanson family, 5 kilometres away on the other side of the Annapolis Basin.
I repeat, there is no primary contemporaneous reference to historic Port Royal as a civil entity equivalent to a town.
HISTORBUFF (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date of founding

[edit]

Both the EBs give 1604. Not saying that 1605 isn't correct, but it needs a citation. — LlywelynII 03:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Annapolis Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Annapolis Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annapolis_Royal&oldid=1213950420"