In 1830 the area of London formerly known as Battle Bridge acquired a new name, Kings Cross. This is a rare image of the “cross” that led to that controversial renaming.
Elevation of King’s Cross 1830 – Architect Stephen Geary
The cross is generally referred to as a monument to George IV and indeed it was topped with a large statue of him but it was originally intended to serve as a monument to several monarchs.
Why is this important? Well the grammar police insist that if it was a monument to one King then an apostrophe should always be used, as in King’s Cross. If, on the other hand, it was a memorial to more than one King, then Kings Cross or even Kings’ Cross would be the appropriate style. An excellent feature on Londonist last year outlined the, still raging, controversy and attracted many passionate comments.
The whole edifice was paid for by public subscription and in the original prospectus the fund-raisers stated their objective of raising a monument to honour “His Most Gracious Majesty William the Fourth, his late Majesty George the Fourth, and the preceding kings of the Royal House of Brunswick.”, lots of monarchs, so Kings it is then?
Well not quite, the waters get a little muddy.
The inscription on the monument certainly reads Kings Cross.
Inscription on Kings Cross
But the dedication is to George IV alone, so back to King’s?
Well despite stating their intention to honour several kings, the fund raisers themselves confusingly use King’s Cross throughout the rest of their subscription prospectus. Or did they?
I found the original subscription “circular” reproduced in full in an 1890 volume Marylebone and St Pancras: Their History, Celebrities, Buildings, and Institutions by George Clinch published by Truslove & Shirley of Oxford Street. I haven’t seen the original, perhaps Mr Clinch “corrected” the original?
Whether it even looked quite as it does in this print is unsure. Clinch states that in a later print of 1836, the four figures of patron saints were not present. He doubts that they were ever erected.
In any case the monument was very unpopular and was removed without complaint between 1843 and 1845, having briefly served as pub and a police station. All that remains of it is the contested name for the station and surrounding area.
To read Clinch’s full account including the subscription circular click here and scroll to page 126.
To argue about apostrophes please feel free to use the comments section.
The author of this blog is a fully qualified and insured City of Westminster Tour Guide who runs unique walking tours and private tours in London.
All Public Walking Tours are bookable here via Eventbrite.
I also offer Private Tours, Private Events and provide Consultancy Services for media and education professionals in London. You can read Reviews of Walks and see some recent projects here. Please feel free to contact me about any of these services.
Forward to a friend
1835 image of it here indeed without the patron saints: http://www.heritage-images.com/Preview/PreviewPage.aspx?id=1238664
Thank you very much for this link I, a great image.
Interesting spelling of “hono(u)r”.
Yes, not sure when the spelling became standardised, thanks Mick.
[...] wait, some new (old) evidence has come to light in an excellent forensic post by London guide Peter Berthoud to support the idea that the area may have been named after a monument to several kings after all [...]
Thanks for a run-down on the monument and the derivation of the modern name, King’s Cross.
The apostrophe for possessives is one of those awkward features of the English language that not only cause embarrassment to people to find the admittedly simple rules of its use too difficult but also provides a way for pedants to attack opponents in debate, surely the lowest form of point-scoring.
Personally, I always write “King’s Cross”, though I can see the arguments, outlined in your post, for “Kings’ Cross”. Given the confusion, which you also indicate, I would suggest that either placing of the apstrophe is perfectly acceptable.
“King’s” is an example of a survival from Old English, which was an inflected language. It had a separate genitive case from which modern “John’s”, “King’s”, etc. derive. The apostrophe was later added by grammarians, foolishly and unnecessarily. Therefore, I am quite happy with people writing “Kings Cross” sans apostrophe, because this is how, in my opinion, it should be written.
Very much enjoyed the post. As a modern pedant and grammar policeman, I would say King’s Cross (possessive singular) for tribute to one King and Kings’ Cross (possessive plural) for tribute to more than one King. However, if this has ended up grammatically wobbly as Kings Cross then so be it – quirks are good.
Anyone like to start on Lloyds Bank?!