User blog comment:Jspyster1/The True Location of Peach Creek Finally Revealed!/@comment-25118629-20140629065040/@comment-25118629-20140701185515

I do not see how the pilgrim stereotype was necessary for the plot considering that the artists could have just as easily donned the Eddy family in western pioneer garb (make them all look like they stumbled out of "Little House on the Prarie"), and have the boys talk sterotypically 'western' instead of trying to use "Ye Olde English" in their video report. Besides it seems like a waste of an episode to put all these clues in all for it to be non-canon.

I would also  say that your point about Fort Peach Creek and present-day Peach Creek being seperate locations is a good one, and I have pondered over it. In my opinion, the episode seems to allude that they are in fact the same place. The Eds were originally given a report to do on the history of the present-day town, and the Fort Peach Creek book is used by Double Dee as an accurate historical record of their present-day town's history. He cites it as proof that Eddy's ancestor's are the founders of their town and that Eddy and his family own the land where they all live (a fact that Eddy takes advantage of. Edd disagrees with Eddy's actions against Kevin, but he does not dispute Eddy's assumptions that he owns the land). If Fort Peach Creek was in fact a seperate location than modern Peach Creek, it seems that Edd would have told Eddy that he did not technically own the land where the cul-de-sac was, only the land where the former fort was. Instead Edd uses Eddy's owner status to try and eject the Kankers out of the cul-de-sac. Edd even goes so far to make a historical mueseum and a video report with them all dressed in the same puritain clothing, and knowing Edd and his school work, he would want his report to be as historically accurate as possible, leaving me to believe it was more than a simple gag (EEnE has never been shy about breaking the 4th wall or lampshading, so it could have been a simple joke for Edd to comment about how there were no pilgrams their area during the time, and Eddy conveniently ignoring it).

Also note that Lord Kanker won the land in a bet. By the time most white settlers with families (as opposed to single men looking for fortune) reached the west coast, the United States was already a country where aristocrisy and royalty were nonexistent. The title of lord would have been meaningless at the time (Lord is a title that denotes loyalty to a monarch, so no American citizen can use such a title as they are forbidden Ex. Rudy Guiliani recieved an honorary knighthood, but he cannot ever call himself by the title Sir.), but lords and other aristocrats would have still existed in colonial times and would have been addressed as such.

Meanwhile, the Vancouver skyline appeared very briefly for only a few seconds in the movie and was never referred to by any of the characters except for possibly just "the city" in Urban Ed.

That's just my take on it anyway. I'm sure we'll probably agree to disagree :)

That is just my take on it anyway.