This   level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: New Hampshire High‑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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (assessed as High-importance). Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following off-site maps show the various claims of the original Thirteen Colonies: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. If this information could be included in a map of this province's claims, it would be great. (This request was originally made by jengod, and I moved it here.) – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 16:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The subject of the lead sentence does not match the title of this article. Which should it be? Weren't such territories of British NA called "colonies" rather than "provinces"? Hult041956 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

They both refer to the same thing, the difference being whether to use the formal or informal name, most of the colonies took on a formal Province of X name at the point that they became Crown Colonies, in New Hampshire's case in 1691 as described in the article. Kmusser 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks Kmusser. I stumbled on the article at random and was a little confused. Best regards, Hult041956 ( talk) 17:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

It would be best if titles were consistant. I assume the later is more official. Also, what towns are meant in the phrase "These towns agreed to unite in 1639 and in 1641 agreed to join the Massachusetts Colony."? Don't you mean the entire Colony? 76.218.100.214 ( talk) 21:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply

There was no formal colony in 1641, it was just a collection of settlements. Magic ♪piano 14:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC) reply

The word "province" was never part of the official name of any of the thirteen British colonies that later formed the United States, yet nine of the titles of the thirteen articles on those colonies include "province". All nine articles should be moved and retitled. WCCasey ( talk) 19:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I had no trouble (2 minutes Google Book search) finding reasonably scholarly sources that use the word "province" to describe the pre-statehood period of New Hampshire history. (For one prominent example, early NH historian Jeremy Belknap used it.) It's fine to make a blanket statement like the above, but: what should the article name be changed to, and what sources support the proposed renaming? Magic ♪piano 16:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

An early usage: 1680 commission of John Cutt: "The Com'ission constituting a President & Councell for ye Province of New Hampshire in New-England" ( link) Magic ♪piano 17:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Magic ♪piano, I happened to notice that the majority of this nonsense is being talked about here: Talk:Thirteen Colonies. Just thought I would let you know! Steve Lux, Jr. ( talk) 21:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

User:Magicpiano I am not sure if the source linked in the "Demographics" section specifically states that the church was not established, but rather that the church was not as strongly established as in, say, Massachusetts or Connecticut. The First Amendment Encyclopedia https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/801/established-churches-in-early-america for example, considers it to have had an established Congregational Church. Even if the establishment is unclear, I think that it would be reasonable to put "Congregationalist" under the colony's religion due to the predomination of that sect in the colony prior to 1776. Sorry if I did not tag you correctly I am still new to Wikipedia editing Michistory88 ( talk) 01:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC) reply

It isn't really meaningful to say anything about established religion prior to the 1680 commission of John Cutt. The 1641 compact by the Piscataqua communities (Dover) mentions majority rule by freemen. [5] Per Belknap, the early agreements for joining with Massachusetts government specifically included exceptions for the requirement of church membership for participation in civic affairs. [6] The Cutt commission makes no mention of specific churches, other than requiring "tolerance of protestants". [7] Purvis, cited in the Demographics section, says that the NH "establishment" was limited to authorizing ministerial tithes (i.e. taxation of the general population to support a specific sectarian minister).

What I've been able to read about the 1691 commission of Samuel Allen (have not found a reprint of it) suggests that it preferred the Church of England, but required toleration of other sects. Magic ♪piano 11:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC) reply