Now, if the Senate decides they want to include in the Articles of Law how naming of the Settlement is to happen then they need to do that.

Well first of all, one with wild game in it. One of our starting techs is hunting. If we had a location with wild game, we could (by building a worker first thing) get a nice early growth boost. As it stands, there is not a single special resource in that start location that does not require that we first study an additional Tech. Specifically, if we research Fishing, then we could build a work boat. That would be a great asset, but it would mean a delay of many turns while we research the Tech to found a religion, then switch to Fishing, then after getting fishing done, build the work boat.

In the long run, our current position will provide a VERY strong city. But it will be a LONG time before we can take full advantage of all those special resources in our midst.

First of all, we do not have mining.  Unless we forego Fishing, and the big boost to growth that will be critical to staying competitive in a Prince level game, taking advantage of those Gems is going to a long way off.

ADDIT: moreover, if we first go for mining and build one on one of those gem riverside grassland tiles, we will get a nice shields bonus on a two food tile, but this will not help in getting our population level up, which is the SINGLE MOST important factor in the early game. Who cares if you have a size 2 city with that produces 6 shields when you could have a size 4 city that produces 9 shields in the same span of time. Growing our population must be the number one priority for the early game, we need more people to provide commerce and get our second city produced asap.

Second the silk is pretty much worthless as far as early game goes. In short, given our starting Tech array this is a mediocre starting location. While the AI is founding its 3rd city we will just be getting up to 2 population! In the long-run this is a great location, but for the early game which is so critical for getting off to a good start this location is only mediocre at best.

Given all of this, I would ask the Senators to consider the merits of a couple of alternatives to building our first city immediately where we have started.

First, let us move our scout to look at the north BEFORE we even consider a starting location.

Second, let us at least CONSIDER two alternate starting locations:

A) two tiles south of where we are (i.e., immediately south of the river, a tile which appears to be grassland). This location would have ALL of the early game merits of the current location, but would also allow up to two additional cities to be built in decent starting locations, should we find that we are crowded in by rapidly growing AI.

In this southerly grassland tile, we would enjoy the health benefits of the river. The most southerly fish would be in our cultural boundary for early growth. The gems will be in there for mining later on. The forested tile north of the hill would be available for a city later on, and once our cultural boundary expands, we can chop that forest for some project in our capital, thus not wasting the lumber. This would also allow a city to be built on the most northwesterly hill tile giving us (with a lighthouse) a city that can grow to considerable size and moderate productivity. Note that, our current location would make these two build sites untenable as they are both within two tiles of the current settler location

B) the forest tile immediately north of the hill. Building here should only be considered if scouting revealed a wild game to the east which would be in our cultural boundary earlier if the capital were here. Puttting the first city here would waste the lumber which is a bad thing.