On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Ted P Gemberling wrote:

> It seems like this is a situation where they used to mostly call 
> something Royal Theatre Drury Lane, but now they mostly call it Drury 
> Lane Theatre. Is that situation handled at all by rules?

  The problem is "mostly." If it's a matter of inconsistent referents on 
publications, then one of the names should be the heading and the other a 
cross-reference to it.

  If it is a matter of the two names having different meanings (e.g. one is 
a building, one is a theatre company), or the name having formally changed 
at some point but publishers being inconsistent despite the change (like 
that would ever happen!), then there should be separate records.

  To start with, how about a history note on the authority records. 
According to Wikipedia:

   "Theatre Royal, Bridges Street" (aka. Theatre Royal in Bridges Street, 
King's Playhouse, etc.) opened in 1663 and burned down in 1672;

   "Theatre Royal, Drury Lane [1674]" opened in 1674 and was demolished in 
1791;

   "Theatre Royal, Drury Lane [1794]" opened in 1794 and burned down in 
1809;

   "The present Theatre Royal in Drury Lane" [aka. Theatre Royal, Drury 
Lane [1812]?] opened in 1812. "Theatre Royal, Drury Lane [is] commonly 
known as Drury Lane" [Wikipedia], so the appellation "Drury Lane Theatre" 
is probably a common informal term (can't prove it's only been used for 
the modern theatre).

   I'd summarize all that as there having been 4 different buildings on 
the same spot, the 1st with the formal name "Theatre Royal, Bridges 
Street" and the following 3 with the same formal name ("Theatre Royal, 
Drury Lane") and informal name (Drury Lane [Theatre]).

Cheers!

jgm

  John G. Marr
  Cataloger
  CDS, UL
  Univ. of New Mexico
  Albuquerque, NM 87131
  [log in to unmask]
  [log in to unmask]


     **There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.