Yes, it’s the neverending debate over whether to punctuate King’s Cross. No ambiguity in where I stand. Even on this site we can’t all agree, and I stick to my own style rule within my posts. Advocates for leaving out the apostrophe say it’s unnecessary and archaic.

But 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 – then again, maybe not. The creators of this wonderful obscure print that Berthoud shows in his post have been usurped by a caption that looks like it was added much later. Never mind that – what’s with spelling honour without a ‘u’?

Whichever your stance, evidence to back it up is readily available. In my case, it’s framed on my wall (pic below), and dates from 1878. Although the apostrophe in the image itself could be a nick in the engraving plate. I’m also prone to a bit of bowing at the altar of the style guides of the BBC, The Times, Guardian, The Telegraph and Economist, which all prescribe punctuation – but curiously the Financial Times does not.

The debate will continue, hopefully carrying on the spirited comments thread created by last year’s Londonist piece. But one thing’s for certain, apostrophe or not, typographic crime such as this should not be allowed to happen again: