Talk:Kingston, Rhode Island

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please provide sources/footnotes before changing the content of this article. In particular, the naming of Kingston Village in 1826, and the architecture of the village, the current content of which is references and linked.Kyuss-Apollo 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide your sources that defy the naming tradition of South County with places such as "Charles" and "King" not being in any way related to King Charles. This anti-Royalist POV you're attempting to foist upon the article is inappropiate. South County was founded during the English Restoration; its name precisely chosen to celebrate the end of the Protectorate because freethinkers like Roger Williams and Rhode Island/Providence Plantation colonists had been persecuted by the Puritans under Cromwell as they had been in Massachusetts. Please, no bullshitting here allowed. Hasbro 23:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice list of sources you have listed...

Also, "South County" is a slang term for Washington County; Kings County was renamed for George Washington during the Revolution. This is not an anti-Royalist POV. Kings County was originally named so because a century earlier (in 1664) a royal commission stepped in to adjudicate conflicting land claims over the so-called Narragansett Country between RI, MA and CT. Rhode Island was granted jusrisdiction until the commission finished processing Connecticut's appeals. RI created the town of Kingstown in 1674 to help further its claims within Kings County, which weren't finalized until 1726, when King George I (not Charles II) declared the western boundary of Rhode Island the Pawcatuck River, placing the region once and for in Rhode Island. (Sources: Carl R. Woodward Plantation in Yankeeland c. 1971, Bruce C. Daniels Dissent and Conformity on Narragansett Bay: The Colonial Rhode Island c. 1983, Sydney V. James Colonial Rhode Island: A History c. 1975, as well his The Colonial Metamorphosis of Rhode Island: A Study of Institutions in Change c. 2000.)

I have never contented or implied in any of my edits that Kingstown or Kings County was not established during the Restoration, though I do dispute your POV (and POV it is until you provide your sources) that it was named Kings County for any other reason than the royal commission of 1664 gave it that name simply because the King would ultimately decide its fate; neither the Protectorate, Cromwell or Roger Williams entered into thier decision at all. Nor does it have anything to do Kingston, formerly Little Rest, the village which you claim was named for the Restoration King Charles 150 years after the Restoration and 50 years after the Revolutionary War. According to Christian M. McBurney, A History of Kingston, R.I. 1700 – 1900: Heart of Rural South County c. 2004, a meeting of citizens of the village of Little Rest voted on December 23, 1825, to change the name of the village. Residents felt the name Little Rest was the subject of practical jokes, and after an English visitor favorably compared the hill at Little Rest with Kingston Hill in the Richmond district outside London, they apparently chose Kingston as the new name. The name change became offcial on January 6, 1826 when the federal Post Office sent notice to the local postmaster to change the name of the post office to Kingston. In his bibliography he provides a list of primary sources for these events.

You do not include any references, I believe, because it seems you are making up history as you go along. I asked you for sources--you provided none and instead demand I give sources and accused me of both "bullshitting" and violating Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. Your insinuations are, quite frankly, offensive. However, I have done as you asked and provided my sources in the interest of returning this discussion from baseless flaming/trolling back to an academic level. Please stop interjecting your Royalist POV into this article, as neither the naming of the town or county in the 17th century has anything to do with the renaming of this village in the 19th. If your contentions are true, they should instead go in an article on the history of Washington County; references to King Charles II in this article are superflous. However, before you go and interject your POV there as well, I kindly suggest you read the sources provided here and familiarize yourself with the actual history of Washington County and the Commission of 1664. Kyuss-Apollo 17:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)