This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Ontario / Quebec / Manitoba / Saskatchewan / Alberta / Geography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec. This article is supported by WikiProject Manitoba. This article is supported by WikiProject Saskatchewan. This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta. This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada. Minnesota Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: North Dakota / History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject North Dakota (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance). British Empire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

really? FitzAnthony (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not fabric nor ink. It is not seen on a mast at sea. It does not flap in the wind.

ai or not it is a digital representation; valid if honest as an example. ProofCreature (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the presumably AI-generated image (File:Armoiries de la Compagnie de la Baie d'Hudson. (version améliorée).png) with the one that is currently in use at Coat of arms of the Hudson's Bay Company (File:HBC-coa (no background).png). Regardless of my opinion of the use of the presumably AI-generated image in the first place (I am very much opposed), it seems weird to not use the image used in the article for the coat of arms for the coat of arms in this article. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the infobox lists "South Dakota" in the section for "Today part of". However, in the lead section of the article, only the U.S. states of Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota are mentioned as having territory that was previously a part of Rupert's Land. No further discussion is given in the main body of the article. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I first read your comment, South Dakota sounded wrong, but after looking at a topographical map, I see that there are several streams in the northeastern corner SD that drain into the Bois de Sioux River and then eventually into Lake Winnipeg. So that part of SD would have been in Rupert's Land. Indefatigable (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]