Richard J. wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message
m...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be
acceptable.

The fact that a few misguided individuals think so doesn't
make their version "generally acceptable".

No, they should not be commended, because it is a
mistake.
The station does not have two different names, and would
not even if the eponymous park did.

If there is no one "correct" spelling or punctuation
specified for a given name how can it be "wrong"?

But there *is* one correct spelling, "St. James's Park".

Quite obviously a number of people disagree with you.

Yeah, a guy who doesn't know when to put an apostrophe in
"it's"; another who goes on about the Queen's English but
doesn't know how the Queen spells the Court of St. James's;
an expert on buses who also makes the same mistake; and two
others (including you) who are fooled into thinking this is
a matter for debate.

I refer you to the spelling adopted by The Royal Parks,
Ordnance Survey, other map producers such as Bartholomew,
Transport for London, City of Westminster, Fowler's Modern
English Usage, and in respect of St. James's Palace (after
which the park was named) the royal web-site
www.royal.gov.uk. Can you provide *any* evidence, apart
from the rogue station sign, that any other spelling is
generally accepted?

You obviously feel strongly about it, I couldn't really give a toss how
anything is spelt or punctuated as long as the meaning is clear.