Cupids can change a child's life?

Terry Roberts
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Town, heritage centre named a must-see destination for young travellers

The Town of Cupids and the Cupids Legacy Centre (pictured here) have made the cut in a book entitled "100 Places That Can Change Your Child's Life." The book was released earlier this month, and is written by Keith Bellows, editor of National Geographic Traveler magazine.

The Town of Cupids and the Cupids Legacy Centre have been lumped in with some very notable company on a list of worldwide destinations that can change a child's life.

The Conception Bay North town of roughly 760 residents and the new Legacy Centre have made a very distinguished list in a book entitled: "100 Places That Can Change Your Child's Life," a publication of National Geographic.

The book was released earlier this month, and is written by Keith Bellows, editor of National Geographic Traveler magazine.

Cupids finds itself on a list that also includes the Galapagos Islands, Victoria Falls, Zambia; Gettysburg, Pa.; Chicago; Angkor, Cambodia; Hong Kong, the Great Barrier Reef, Machu Picchu, Athens and The Grand Canyon.

“Here in the region, we know the significance of our roots and the role Cupids played in the settlement of Newfoundland and Canada,” Roy Dawe, Chair of Cupids Legacy Inc., said in a prepared statement.

“But to receive an endorsement such as this from such a world-class organization is a real honour — and gives a tremendous boost to our profile outside the province.”

Bellows considers the places on the list must-see destinations for parents and their children.

In a section called “Continent’s Easterly Edge,” Bellows puts a spotlight on John Guy’s colony, the archeological dig site, and the Cupids Legacy Centre in his short list of attractions on the Avalon Peninsula.

The Johnson GEO Centre, the Witless Bay Ecological Reserve and nearby boat tours, and Signal Hill also made the list.

According to news reports, Bellows launched the project several years ago with a list of about 700 worthwhile possibilities, then began editing and eliminating for geographic balance and diversity of experience.

In an earlier interview, Bellows said he hopes the book inspires families to hit the road — whether the destination is around the world or around the block. Travel, he says, promotes cultural literacy and global understanding in a world that has a short supply of both.

"The passport is the new diploma," he wrote. "The world is the greatest classroom we have."

According to an earlier review of the book, Bellows offers insider tips from locals, plus hotel recommendations, kid-appropriate reading materials and splurge-worthy souvenirs.

The Cupids Legacy Centre, meanwhile, was opened in 2010 as a legacy project of the Cupids 400 anniversary celebrations, which commemorated the establishment of the first English settlement and birthplace of English Canada by Governor John Guy (Cupids, 1610).

The centre is a state-of-the-art facility with an innovative and interactive museum, an archeological lab, a family history resource centre and archive, a multi-purpose hall, a museum shop and an exterior viewing deck and faerie garden.

A place “Where the Present Meets the Past,” the Legacy Centre showcases the heritage and culture that have defined Cupids’ place in Canadian history.

For more information about the Cupids Legacy Centre, see www.cupidslegacycentre.ca.

Organizations: Cupids Legacy Centre, National Geographic, Cupids Legacy Johnson GEO Centre Witless Bay Ecological Reserve

Geographic location: Canada, Conception Bay, Galapagos Islands Victoria Falls Zambia Gettysburg, Pa. Chicago Cambodia Hong Kong Great Barrier Reef Machu Picchu Athens Grand Canyon Newfoundland Signal Hill

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • citizen of cupids
    February 23, 2013 - 18:35

    it was always refered to as CUPERS COVE,but just before the 2010 celebrations the name was changed to CUPIDS COVE,what was the reason ....if it was the original john guy plantation why change the name ....a lot more questions then there are answers.......

  • Don II
    February 22, 2013 - 11:18

    It appears that Bill Gilbert has missed the point completely. The issue is not whether Cupids Cove existed where it is now. The issue is whether Cupids Cove and Cupers Cove are one and the same place.The issue is also whether or not Cupids Cove and Cupers Cove existed as separate and distant places in 1610. It is clear that the historical letters, maps, Crown Land Grants and the Plantation Books show that Cupids Cove and Cupers Cove were separate and distant locations which were not situated near each to other when John Guy arrived in Conception Bay in 1610! A map made by John Senex in 1719 shows the location of "Cooper's Cove" between Colliers Bay and Harbour Main. The Senex map clearly shows that the name "Cooper's Cove" was known and was still in use in 1719 and had not been combined into or changed to the name of Cupids Cove as Mr. Gilbert appears to imply. John Guy confirmed that Cupers Cove existed in his letter of 1610. Bartholomew Pearson confirmed that Cupids Kove existed in his letter of 1613. The historical maps show that Cupids Cove existed in the same location where it is now. It should be clear to any objective person that John Guy referred to Cupers Cove and Bartholomew Pearson referred to Cupids Cove which were two separate places! The historical letters, maps, Crown Land Grants and Plantation Books clearly show that Cupids Cove and Cupers Cove existed as separate and distant places from each other when John Guy arrived in 1610. It appears that Bill Gilbert is attempting to dismiss the importance of numerous historic maps which exist of Conception Bay which show the location of only two places named Salmon Cove in the 1600's. The maps clearly show a Salmon Cove located near Carbonear where it remains today and show the other Salmon Cove located near where Avondale is located today. None of the 17th century maps show a Salmon Cove locate near Cupids Cove! There can be no credible dispute that it was the Salmon Cove (now Avondale) was used as the boundary between the Sea Forest Plantation and the Colony of Avalon. There can be no credible dispute that the Sea Forest Plantation was NOT located in Cupids Cove. There can be no credible dispute that John Guy wrote in 1610 that Cupers Cove was a "branch of" or near to Salmon Cove. Logic and common sense dictates that the land which John Guy chose for his Sea Forest Plantation would be located near to the Cupers Cove Plantation for practical reasons alone such as Governor Guy having to be near to the Cupers Cove Plantation to oversee its operation without having to travel from Cupids Cove by sea or land to get to Cupers Cove. There can be no credible dispute that Cupers Cove was located near to Salmon Cove. There can be no credible dispute that Salmon Cove formed the boundary between John Guy's Sea Forest Plantation and the Colony of Avalon. There can be no credible dispute that the Sea Forest Plantation and its boundary at Salmon Cove were NOT located near to Cupids Cove. There can be no credible dispute that there was no place inhabited or named Salmon Cove located near Cupids Cove because the unnamed cove near Cupids was known as Bay de Grave in 1610! The historical documents, maps and Plantation Books do not a show any place that was inhabited or named Salmon Cove near Cupids Cove in the 1600's. Accordingly, it is simply NOT possible that John Guy wrote about the Salmon Cove near Cupids Cove because it did not exist as Salmon Cove in 1610! Due to its strategic importance it was the Salmon Cove (now Avondale) which formed the boundary between the Sea Forest Plantation and the Colony of Avalon. We know that the boundary of the Sea Forest Plantation and the Colony of Avalon was NOT located near to Cupids Cove. Due to the well documented close proximity of Salmon Cove (now Avondale) to Cupers Cove and the well documented connection of Salmon Cove (now Avondale) as the boundary between John Guy's Sea Forest Plantation and the Colony of Avalon it could only be the Salmon Cove (now Avondale) to which John referred in his letter of October 6, 1610! These are historical FACTS! It appears that Mr. Gilbert has erroneously attributed events documented by John Guy and Henry Crout has having occurred at Cupids Cove when in fact the events occurred at Cupers Cove where both Guy and Crout stated they were living at the time they wrote their letters and journals! There can be no credible dispute that Cupers Cove was a separate and distant place which was NOT located near Cupids! It should not be necessary to explain that John Guy's description of the richness and deepness of the soil and the largeness of the trees which he found at Cupers Cove does not in any way describe the poor soil and lack of large trees found at Cupids! Despite the imaginary connection of Cupids to John Guy, the historical facts when properly researched and objectively interpreted, show clearly that there can be no credible dispute that Cupids is NOT Cupers Cove!

  • Quiet Observer
    February 22, 2013 - 09:09

    Great article Mr. Gilbert.

  • Don II
    February 21, 2013 - 19:04

    I trust that The Compass will publish my response to the comments of Bill Gilbert. It is clear that Bill Gilbert's voluminous recital of his misinterpretation of historical documentation is simply a weak attempt to support his mistaken conclusions regarding the actual location of Cupers Cove. Despite his excessively verbose recital of his theories, Mr. Gilbert does not offer any conclusive proof that Cupids and Cupers Cove are the same place. It appears that Bill Gilbert cannot accept the fact that the historical documents show that Cupids Cove and Cupers Cove existed at separate and distant locations in 1610. I understand that if Mr. Gilbert accepted the fact that Cupids Cove and Cupers Cove existed at separate and distant locations in 1610 that it would completely destroy his argument and would result in dire consequences for the premise on which his theory is based. It appears that Mr. Gilbert's argument is supported only by historical information which is presented out of proper context and combined with liberal amounts of theory, conjecture, imagination, fiction presented as proven fact and misinterpretation of historical documents. The historical facts, properly and objectively researched and interpreted totally refute the conclusion that Cupids Cove and Cupers Cove are the same place. The fact remains that the historical record shows that Cupids is NOT Cupers Cove. The fact remains that no empirical evidence has ever been produced to conclusively prove that the authentic location of the Cupers Cove Plantation has been found in Cupids! The fact remains that the Government of Newfoundland chose not to designate the purported site in Cupids as the authentic location of the Cupers Cove Plantation! The fact remains that the Government of Newfoundland, despite claims that Cupids is the location of the Cupers Cove Plantation chose to designate the purported site as the Cupids Cove Plantation Provincial Historic Site and not as the Cupers Cove Plantation Provincial Historic Site. Historical documents exist which show that Cupers Cove and Cupids Cove are NOT and never were the same place! Mr. Gilbert refers to the letter of Bartholomew Pearson who referred to Cupids Kove. I do not doubt that Bartholomew Pearson referred to Cupids Kove in his letter due to the fact that the historical documents and maps show that Cupids Cove and Cupers Cove existed at separate and distant locations in 1610. It appears that neither John Guy nor Henry Crout ever stated that they were they were living in Cupids Cove. The historical documents and letters show that John Guy and Henry Crout were living at Cupers Cove which was a separate and distant location from Cupids Cove. If John Guy and Henry Crout were writing their letters and journals while living in Cupids Cove they would have indicated that they were living at Cupids Cove which they did not do! The fact that both Cupids Cove and Cupers Cove both existed at the same time and both had similar names has apparently misled the public including numerous authors into mistakenly concluding that Cupids Cove and Cupers Cove were the same location. John Guy wrote in his letter of October 6, 1610 that Cupers Cove was a "branch of" or near to Salmon Cove. The historical documents, letters, maps, Crown Land Grants and Plantation Books to which I refer clearly show that there was no place located near to Cupids Cove named Salmon Cove when John Guy arrived in 1610. Mr. Gilbert claims that the non existence of Salmon Cove near Cupids on 17th century maps is not proof that there was no Salmon Cove near Cupids in 1610 is not supported by the historical facts. I have reviewed numerous maps of Conception Bay made by different map makers in the 1600's and 1700's ALL of which show no place name Salmon Cove located near Cupids. The Plantation Books also show that there was no habitation of Salmon Cove near Cupids until around the late 1780's or over 150 years AFTER John Guy arrived at Cupers Cove near Salmon Cove (now Avondale). The documents clearly show that the Salmon Cove to which John Guy referred was located near where the town of Avondale is located today. The fact remains that Salmon Cove (now Avondale) was well known, well documented and mapped in the early 1600's. The fact remains that the Salmon Cove (now Avondale) figured prominently as a pivotal landmark which formed the boundary between the Sea Forest Plantation and the Colony of Avalon in the early 1600's neither of which place was located near Cupids.The Salmon Cove near Cupids holds no such important distinction or function in history. The fact remains that John Guy could NOT have been referring to the Salmon Cove near Cupids because it was not so named, inhabited or mapped. A map created by John Hacke in 1677 clearly shows that Cupids Cove existed and was located where it is today. However, the nearest place located near to Cupids Cove called Salmon Cove on the Hacke map is clearly the Salmon Cove located between Colliers Bay and Harbour Main which is NOT near Cupids! Maps created by Nicolaes Visscher in 1690, John Thornton in 1698, Gerard Van Keulen in 1720 all show Salmon Cove located between Colliers Bay and Harbour Main which is NOT near Cupids. A map created by John Senex in 1719 shows the location of "Coopers Cove" situated in the area between Colliers Bay and Harbour Main near where the town of Avondale is located now. A letter written by Edward Wynne of the Colony of Avalon at Ferryland refers to "our Northern Plantation". In order for Wynne to refer to "our Northern Plantation"! The "Northern Plantation" would have to be owned and controlled by the proprietors of the Colony of Avalon and located on land situated within the boundary of the Colony of Avalon, otherwise, Wynne would not have referred to the place as "our" "Northern Plantation"! The boundary of the Colony of Avalon included half of the harbor at Salmon Cove (now Avondale). The boundary of the Colony of Avalon did not extend anywhere near to Cupids Cove. The same Salmon Cove(now Avondale) formed the boundary between the Sea Forest Plantation and the Colony of Avalon which did not include Cupids Cove. Mr. Gilbert has conceded that historical documents exist which show that the Sea Forest Plantation was never located in Cupids despite decades long claims that Cupids was the undisputed site of the Sea Forest Plantation. For some unexplained reason, Mr. Gilbert refuses to acknowledge the fact that despite the claims that Cupids is Cupers Cove that historical documents also exist which show that Cupers Cove and Cupids are NOT the same place! The claims regarding the Sea Forest Plantation in Cupids have been refuted by historical documentation and the claims regarding the existence of the Cupers Cove Plantation in Cupids are refuted by the same historical documentation which also refers to the Sea Forest Plantation. It is clear that "Our Northern Plantation" to which Edward Wynne referred could only have been the Cupers Cove Plantation which was acquired, annexed and located on land situated within the boundary of the Colony of Avalon. Accordingly, the site of the Cupers Cove Plantation must be located somewhere between Colliers Bay and Harbour Main near Avondale! The boundary between the Sea Forest Plantation and the Colony of Avalon included Salmon Cove (now Avondale). The historic documents show that neither the Sea Forest Plantation nor the Colony of Avalon were located anywhere near to Cupids Cove. The confusion regarding the location of Cupers Cove is rooted in the fact that the historical documents which show that both Cupids Cove and Cupers Cove existed at separate and distant locations when John Guy arrived in 1610 have been ignored by authors and archaeologists alike. The primary clue which clearly identifies where Cupers Cove was located in 1610 is the fact that Salmon Cove forms the boundary between the Sea Forest Plantation and the Colony of Avalon. It is clear that the Colony of Avalon included "our Northern Plantation" which could only be the Cupers Cove Plantation located near Salmon Cove (now Avondale)! The documents clearly show that the Salmon Cove which formed the boundary between the Sea Forest Plantation and the Colony of Avalon was the Salmon Cove which was located near Avondale. The Salmon Cove located near Cupids was not named, inhabited or mapped until at least 150 years AFTER John Guy arrived near Salmon Cove (now Avondale)! Mr. Gilbert's conclusion that the historic documents do not prove that Cupers Cove was located near Avondale ignores the fact that the documents he refers to in support of his claims do not prove that Cupids and Cupers Cove are the same place. It is clear to anyone who objectively reviews the historical documentation that Cupers Cove was located near Salmon Cove (now Avondale) and that Cupids Cove is NOT the same place as Cupers Cove! Despite Mr. Gilbert's claims, conjecture and misinterpretation of the historical documentary record, the fact remains that no documentary, physical, scientific or empirical evidence has ever been produced which conclusively proves that Cupids and Cupers Cove are the same place. The fact remains that the Government of Newfoundland did not designate the site in Cupids as the authenticated and conclusively proven location of the Cupers Cove Plantation. It appears that the Government of Newfoundland cannot conclusively prove that the purported site in Cupids is the authentic location of the Cupers Cove Plantation! It appears that the Government of Newfoundland chose instead to designate the fictional Cupids Cove Plantation in order to attempt to justify the expropriation of privately owned land which it knew or ought to have known does not contain the authentic site of the Cupers Cove Plantation!

  • William Gilbert
    February 21, 2013 - 14:44

    In response to the comments posted by Don II There is absolutely no doubt that Cupids is the site of the first English settlement in Canada established in 1610. Here are some of the facts: FIRST: The two names commonly used for the colony, Cupers Cove and Cupids Cove, are clearly variants of the same name and it is incorrect to say that “ the Cupids Cove Plantation is a fictional place which is never mentioned in the historical record of Newfoundlandland”. While John Guy refers to the colony as Cupers Cove, other early documents refer to the same place as Cupids Cove. The earliest of these that I’m aware of is a letter written by Bartholomew Pearson from the colony in April, 1613. Bartholomew arrived at Renews in Newfoundland in the spring of 1612 and stayed there until August of that year before sailing on to Cupids. Sir Percival Willoughby, one of the main investors in the colony, had given Bartholomew a number of domesticated birds, or fowls, to transport to the new colony. In his letter, written to Sir Percival, Bartholomew states that, “I brought the fowls which you sent to Renouse [Renews] which was our first landing place and from thence to cupids kove.”.(The use of a ‘k’ instead of a ‘c’ at the beginning of ‘cove’ is not uncommon in the 16th and 17th centuries). Sir William Alexander, a good friend of John Mason, the colony’s second governor, also referred to the colony as Cupids Cove. In his book, “ An Encouragement to Colonies”, published in 1624, Alexander says, “The first houses for habitation were built in Cupids Cove within the Bay of Conception ...”. The fact is that spellings were not standardized in the 16th and 17th centuries. In many cases people spelled words the way they pronounced them or the way they thought they should be spelled and it was not unusual even for the same person to spell the same word or name a number of different ways. Just to give one example, in 16th and 17th century documents, the name of John Guy’s home town of Bristol is often spelled “Bristow”. During a time when many Newfoundland place names were just being established and when the Avalon was frequented by fishermen and colonists speaking any number of dialects, it would only make sense that the name would be pronounced and written in different ways by different people. SECOND: Despite what Prowse said in his “History of Newfoundland”, published 118 years ago, historians have known for decades now that the colony established by John Guy in 1610 and Sea Forest Plantation were not the same place. Instead, Sea Forest Plantation was a private grant of land given to John Guy by the Newfoundland Company in return for his years of service. In his will Guy passed Sea Forest on to his sons, something he could not have done with the original colony because it belonged to the Newfoundland Company. As Gillian Cell states in her book “English Enterprise in Newfoundland, 1577-1660" : “Before his death in 1629 [Guy] had received a lot in Newfoundland which he called Seaforest and which he bequeathed to his sons” (page 71). It is John Guy’s private grant of land, Sea Forest, and not the 1610 colony that is mentioned in the Charter of Avalon as adjoining George Calvert’s grant at the bottom of Conception Bay. THIRD: It is true that a number of documents related to the colony state that it was located near a place called Salmon Cove. However, there is no evidence to indicate that the Salmon Cove referred to in these documents is the Salmon Cove that was later renamed Avondale. The fact that a 17th century map exists in which present day Avondale is called Salmon Cove tells us only that the earlier name for that place extended back into the 17th century. Seventeenth century maps are not as comprehensive as modern maps. The people that drew them included place names that they knew or that they believed to be of significance but one cannot assume that, because a place name is not included on a particular 17th century map, it was not named at that time. The fact is there are a number of Salmon Coves in Conception Bay including one just over the hill to the north of Cupids. And the Salmon Cove mentioned in the Charter of Avalon is clearly not present day Avondale. The Charter clearly states that the Salmon Cove it’s talking about is to the west of Petty Harbour, “on the south side of the Bay of Conception”. Nor is John Guy’s Sea Forest Plantation near the Salmon Cove mentioned in the charter. Instead the charter states that Sea Forest lies farther “along the shore... to the south” of Salmon Cove at the bottom of Conception Bay. (The charter is published in Gillian Cell’s “Newfoundland Discovered” and these quotes are on page 259). FORTH: In his letter dated October 6, 1610, Guy tells us that the colony was actually located three leagues, or roughly nine miles, northeast of Colliers as is Cupids. FIFTH: In his letter of May 16, 1611 Guy states that the lake located a short distance from the bottom of the harbour at Cupers Cove is “two miles in length and the sixth part of a mile broad”. Cupids Pond, located a short distance from the bottom of Cupids Harbour is, on average, 1/6 of a mile wide. Today Cupids Pond is about 1.6 miles in length but railway construction in the late 19th century and in-filling since then has reduced its length considerable. SIXTH: In his journal, Henry Crout makes frequent references to “the little pond” at the bottom of the harbour where the colony is located. There is a small salt water pond at the bottom of Cupids harbour. SEVENTH: In his journal, Crout refers to the headland between the harbour in which the colony is located and Salmon Cove as ‘the Spectacles’. Today the headland that lies between Cupids and SalmonCove is called Spectacle Head. EIGHTH: In his journal Crout refers to the headland at the entrance to the bay in which the colony is located as Burnt Head and on February 5, 1613 Crout states that “in the morning there was a cream of Ice all this bay over within the Burnt Head”. Today the headland at the entrance to the bay in which Cupids is located is still called Burnt Head. NINTH: In his journal Henry Crout tells us that the colony was within walking distance of Brigus, Salmon Cove and Burnt Head and that the colonists were hunting and trapping in both Salmon Cove and Brigus. Cupids is within easy walking distance of Salmon Cove to the northwest, Burnt Head to the northeast and Brigus to the southeast. TENTH: And if all that isn’t enough, any number of 17th century maps show ‘Cupers Cove’, ‘Coopers Cove’, ‘Cuperts Cove’,‘Cupits Cove’, ‘Cupids Cove’ or some other variant of that name exactly where the town of Cupids is located today. FINALLY: I invite anyone who would like to learn more about the history and archaeology of Cupids to visit our website at: http://www.baccalieudigs.ca/ (Bill Gilbert, Chief Archaeologist, Baccalieu Trail Heritage Corporation)

  • Don II
    February 20, 2013 - 15:11

    This story is just more propaganda promoting the town of Cupids fictional version of history which is totally contradicted by the content of historical documents, letters, maps, Crown land Grants and facts. For decades the town of Cupids promoted itself as the location of John Guy's Sea Forest Plantation. Documents were discovered that showed that the Sea Forest Plantation was NEVER located in Cupids. It appears that factual revelations do not have much impact on the promoters of Cupids fictional version of history. It appears that myths are more accepted than facts by some in Cupids. After the town of Cupids claim to the Sea Forest Plantation was exposed as a fiction and completely refuted, it appears that the promoters of the town of Cupids continued to promote Cupids as the site of the Cupers Cove Plantation established by John Guy in 1610. It appears that the promoters of Cupids are claiming that the Salmon Cove which John Guy wrote was located near to Cupers Cove is the same Salmon Cove located near to Cupids. However, historical documents, letters, maps and Crown land Grants show that Cupers Cove was located near to Salmon Cove (now Avondale)? Historic documents and maps show that the Salmon Cove located near Cupids was not named or inhabited until 150 years AFTER John Guy arrived near Salmon Cove (now Avondale)! The historical documents show that Cupids is NOT Cupers Cove! It appears that books which promote Cupids as the site of the Cupers Cove Plantation, the Cupids Cove Plantation or the Sea Forest Plantation are fictional or incorrect accounts of history. The Cupids Cove Plantation is a fictional place which is NEVER mentioned in the historical record of Newfoundland and Labrador! The Government of Newfoundland did not designate the site in Cupids as the being the authentic Cupers Cove Plantation and chose instead to expropriate privately owned land to create a Provincial Historic Site in Cupids to commemorate the completely fictional Cupids Cove Plantation!