0

London Royal Parks

and

London's Royal Parks

Both phrases are used, and I understand that "London" in the first example is acting as an adjective. Whereas in the second, "London", is used as a proper noun and therefore has an apostrophe.

However, which form is the older? I suspect that it is the second and if that is the case, why do only two Royal Parks: St. James's and The Regent's Park, have an apostrophe while four Royal Parks do not? In other words: Why not Hyde's Park, Richmond's Park, Greenwich's Park and Kensington's Gardens?

Please, no answers with:

"The Royal Parks in London"

or

"The Royal Parks of London."

and claiming the above are "correct" because inanimate nouns and geographic names do not take the apostrophe. That's false. On dates I found this on Wikipedia:

Place names in the United States do not use the possessive apostrophe on federal maps and signs. The United States Board on Geographic Names, which has responsibility for formal naming of municipalities and geographic features, has deprecated the use of possessive apostrophes since 1890 so as not to show ownership of the place. Only five names of natural features in the U.S. are officially spelled with a genitive apostrophe (one example being Martha's Vineyard).

I'd also be interested to know which form is considered "preferable" by linguists, grammarians etc... London Royal Parks or London's Royal Parks and which is more common in everyday speech.

Improve this question
6
  • When referring to them in general, people normally call them "the royal parks". They have a website, here royalparks.org.uk You might be able to get some more information from it.
    – Tristan
    Commented Jun 12, 2013 at 11:39
  • @Tristan Thanks, but actually it was that very website which prompted me to ask my question in the first place. Admittedly I didn't read all the website but I remember being struck by the fact that not once were the expressions: London's Royal Parks or London Royal parks used.
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Jun 13, 2013 at 16:58
  • 1
    Mari-Lou A, maybe it's not necessary to say London's Royal Parks or London Royal parks because people normally just call them "the royal parks".
    – Tristan
    Commented Jun 14, 2013 at 13:14
  • Here are links to the histories of, Hyde Park, Richmond Park, Greenwich Park and Kensington Gardens: royalparks.org.uk/parks/hyde-park/about-hyde-park , royalparks.org.uk/parks/richmond-park/about-richmond-park , royalparks.org.uk/parks/greenwich-park/about-greenwich-park and royalparks.org.uk/parks/kensington-gardens/… .
    – Tristan
    Commented Jun 14, 2013 at 13:23
  • London's Royal Parks as a possessive form (compare New York's boroughs, Scotland's Parliament, Swansea's shops, etc) is different to the actual name of a park such as Regent's Park. The question seems unclear what it's asking about, whether it's the naming of the individual parks or how best to refer to the collective.
    – Stuart F
    Commented Nov 28, 2023 at 14:50

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

To a large extent, this is a matter of idiom.

In Hyde Park, Richmond Park, Greenwich Park and Kensington Gardens, the first words are all place-names.

Hyde Park was enclosed by Henry VIII when he obtained the manor of Hyde from the canons of Westminster Abbey in 1536. Wikipedia

The names of the Parks are their proper names, and it would be almost completely alien to use a possessive. A rather contrived example might be

Greenwich's Park has unrivalled architecture

...but that would only happen if it were to be written by Greenwich Borough Council extolling a local virtue over other Parks. It just isn't done.

With regard to London or London's, it's only used if it's necessary to distinguish the Parks in London from others, in much the same way as the Greenwich example. Either form might be used; it's a stylistic choice.

London's Royal Parks receive more visitors than those outside the capital.
The London Royal Parks ensure that it is the greenest city of its size in the world1.

There are English place names which include an apostrophe (for example Pratt's Bottom) but the Royal Parks are not among them.

1 London Councils

Improve this answer
4
  • Thank you, your answer makes a lot of sense. Could you tell me which expression is currently more in use among Londoners? Or if "The Royal Parks in/of London" is indeed more popular?
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Jun 12, 2013 at 7:37
  • Again, it's idiomatic. "The Royal Parks in London receive more visitors than those in other parts of the country" (note the two uses of in); "The Royal Parks of London are more beautiful than those created by the Danish Royal Family." I'll have to leave it to linguists to explain why one is preferred over the other in those sentences!
    – Andrew Leach ♦
    Commented Jun 12, 2013 at 7:46
  • 1
    Without the article, as Andrew illustrates above, the apostrophised version would be far more idiomatic. And if the parks in question had not been mentioned before, or were not being contrasted with others, I'm sure London's Royal Parks would be the clear favourite.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Jun 12, 2013 at 7:49
  • Thank you! I'll wait to see if someone else wants to take up the gauntlet before awarding you the green tick!
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Jun 12, 2013 at 7:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .