The “oh no” was intended as snark, and I apologise. The “so what” though was sincerely intended to convey my belief that “city rights” are irrelevant to this thread (since places have names irrespective of their legal status), and that Toxylon has failed to demonstrate otherwise, despite being challenged on it by people other than me.
Thanks for the apology. However, the “So what?” was at least rude. Something like “That’s not relevant in the context of this thread” would have been better.
In any case, try to remain civil even if another poster is being frustrating.
Another exception is Craigavon, a proposed new town (city?) in Northern Ireland.
Canada Water and Canada Dock aren’t even large enough to be considered areas of London, TBH - they’re just DLR stations. There are lots of them named after the locations the docks in those parts of the Thames served - there’s even one simply called Cyprus. They do count as place names sort of, but I thought that the OP was asking for larger places than that.
And the reason most of us have limited our answers to the period after the settlement of the US is that the question was about places in Europe being named after places in North America. Obvs that includes places other than the US, but the rough dates are the same.
I’m not going to reply directly to the angry posts.
This question seems to have gone unremarked amidst the kerfuffle. I don’t know the answer but I’d like to as well.
Not quite sure what the right terms for those would be - a suburb? District? But the origin of the name is no mystery - it’s where ships doing trade with Canada would dock. That’s quite common in cities with strong shipping connections, I think - here in Bristol, one of our old harbour wharfs is called ‘Welsh back’ as that’s where the coal from Wales was delivered.
Not sure any of these would count as a settlement as per the Op’s question though. Interesting vestige of history not withstanding.
I would call it a neighbourhood. “District” sounds like there is some local administrative unit in charge of the area, which is not true for the Docklands - they’re spread across several London boroughs. And “suburb” sounds rather detached from the main city, which to me doesn’t seem appropriate considering that some parts of the Docklands (notably Canary Wharf) are very urbanised and would qualify for what would be called downtown areas or CBDs in American parlance.
Neighbourhood works for me, although even that might be overstating it somewhat.
I wonder if this is a weird Scottish New Town thing. East Kilbride seemingly has a district named after places in Canada:
There’s a fair few places named “Newtown” in both the UK and Ireland. I’m going to go out on a limb and say they aren’t named after a pre-existing place.
Canada Dock is the old dock, Canada Water is the station - they’re the same place. Canada Water sort of is a neighbourhood, loosely defined. I don’t think it’s got any political status - no Canada Water councillors (which would make it a ward, the smallest political unit in the UK - parish councils aside), let alone MPs. It’s part of Rotherhithe. Despite what I said before, I could imagine people living there sometimes referring to living in Canada Water, especially if they’re new to the area. But it’s a tiny area geographically. I’m not going to make big efforts to check how small, but it’ll be well under half a mile square.
However, if areas as small as that count, it’s a good call.
It would definitely be very odd to refer to it as a suburb. It’s barely into zone 2 and half of it’s skyscrapers. The other half is water - it’s a slightly strange place TBH.
I’ve looked at the origins of several places called Newtown. Most of them are hundreds of years old, and were originally called Niwetune or Newentone or Nueton. There are also cases such as Newtownabbey named after the pre-existing village of Whiteabbey.
Virginia, County Cavan, Ireland and Virginia Water, UK are both probably named after the US colony.
Don’t know about the Irish one, but the English one was named after QEI, same as the state of Virginia was.
Cite? What do you know that the compilers of an Oxford University Press dictionary don’t know? OUP dictionaries are usually well researched and a reliable reference.
There’s also New College, Oxford, one of the oldest constituent colleges of the University, founded in 1379. But of course, when it was founded it was indeed “new”.
Sorry, didn’t see that you’d provided a cite - I can barely see the dark blue link as a difference against the black, and my colour vision is good - I prefer not to embed cites here without stating it’s a cite for that very reason. I’ve been there and thought it was one of the many places named after QEI and then when I looked it up everything else said the same.
It’s still not a town or city, per the OP.
It’s often the case in England that somewhere called ‘New’ is actually medieval, often replacing another village or house - ie it’s a new place, because it’s not the old place. Fits the medieval pattern of calling a spade a spade, much like surnames of the period. There’s a large country estate near where I grew up called ‘New Hall’ which is 13th century, rumours being it replaced an older house.
I see your cite, and if it’s correct it’s a perfect example. However I have never before come across the claim that the town is named after the American colony, and it’s a somewhat surprising claim. It’s usually thought to be called after Queen Elizabeth, which fits with the historical context of its founding.
Not so fast… That snippet view of A. D. Mills’s Dictionary of English Place-Names cuts out an important detail.
The full entry in the 1998 edition reads ‘Virginia Water Surrey, first recorded in 1749, originally a fanciful name for the artificial lake created here in 1748 by the Duke of Cumberland (earlier Governor of Virginia in America).’
There are however a couple of problems with that. The first is that Cumberland was never governor of Virginia. The other is that the name ‘Virginia’, probably a house, is recorded in the area a century earlier. That doesn’t disprove a connection with the colony. But it is good evidence that the Cumberland story is spurious, which in turn strengthens the likelihood that the supposed connection with the colony was just someone’s guess.
A much more authoritative cite would be the standard scholarly work on Windsor Great Park - Jane Roberts’s Royal Landscape (Yale University Press, 1997). She very sensibly concludes that, ‘Although numerous theories have been advanced as to the etymology of Virginia Water, its origin remains unknown’ (p. 254).