The principle that I try to follow is to use the correct name that was in effect at the time of the event. As Dale says ... "It all depends upon the year and the precise location." I agree.
There are others who just list current names, or use names that might be more widely understood. For example, Betty mentions that she takes a different approach in “postings” because "it is easier to say ... rather than trying to explain." Yes, that can sometimes make communication easier.
I understand all of these approaches. In conversation I will use whatever method helps to communicate. However, my quandry is deciding what to use in my "official" genealogical records to refer to pre-1777 lands in what is now the USA.
Usually the challenge is identifying historical place names by date for the cities, towns, counties, colonies, provinces, etc. Those are all subdivisions of a larger whole. Both Betty's and Dale's replies deal with this challenge. I understand that it might be appropriate to use...
New Plymouth Colony, as of 1620
Province of Maine, as of 1622
Province of New Hampshire, as of 1629
Massachusetts Bay Colony, as of 1630
And maybe even "Royal Colony of Massachusetts," as of 1691.
However, none of that is my present question. As I see it, all of those subdivisions were part of something larger. I want to figure out and standardize that higher level. Personally I like the term "New England" for everything between Long Island Sound and Newfoundland. One of the questions I ask myself is “how would an official living in the day of the event have referred to the place?” That is why I look at documents, like the actual charters. The 1620 charter mentions the term "New-England in America," and frequently uses the shortened term "New England." These same terms are used pretty consistently in the 1629 charters for New Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay. However, if I use that, then I will have similar problems with the "Middle colonies" or the "Southern Colonies," etc.
I have noticed that Wikipedia has taken to using "British America" as a term that collects all of the areas together. You will see that in each of these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Colonieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_AmericaI have also seen that one of the genealogy software vendors, Roots Magic, is using “British America” in its new CountyCheck feature. (See this for some discussion:
http://forums.ancestry-world.com/archive/index.php/t-9856.ht...) And I have found recent trees in which people are using that as a standard.
Now, in the present, if we refer to “British America” in conversation, we probably all understand what, when and where we are talking about. So, using that as the overall place name before 1777 might make sense. However, it seems like the term “British America” could not be correctly applied until 1707 when England and Scotland united and became "Great Britain." (I am not a historian, so my conclusions could be way off.) Prior to that, the colonial lands “belonged” to the sovereign state of England, not “Britain.”
The more I think about it, I am leaning towards “Colonial America.” That might eliminate having to know all of the political histories of the ruling powers (England, Spain, France, Netherlands, etc.). So, all of the lands of the 13 colonies could be “Colonial America” for 3 centuries, until the United States was official.