1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SOC.GENEALOGY.BRITAIN

  • Re: death sequence? (East Ruston, Norfolk)

    From Charles Ellson@21:1/5 to G6JPG@255soft.uk on Fri Oct 20 17:10:55 2023
    On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:39:55 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
    <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

    From a stone I photographed there on Tuesday (2023-10-17). [I think this
    is a text-only group; if someone says it isn't, I'll post the pic.]

    Very clear apart from the "th". All lines are of course centred.
    IN
    LOVING MEMORY OF
    WILLIAM CURTIS
    DIED MAY 27TH 1936
    AGED 86 YEARS.
    ALSO HIS WIFE
    SARAH CURTIS
    DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
    AGED 72 YEARS.
    RESTING IN PEACE

    (All in capitals, though of varying sizes.)

    What puzzled me: on stones I've looked at in the past, "Also" usually
    means a later addition. But here, her date is nearly 13 years _before_
    his. As I say, it's very clear - at least the 1936 and the 192. Any idea >what's going on?

    Could be a stonemason's error - I know my grandfather's date was wrong
    for many years, and of course advantage was taken of my grandmother's >distressed state (so we feel, anyway) to not correct it - but where such
    a glaring error as above has been made, if it _was_ an error, I wouldn't
    have thought that was the explanation.

    Checking with GRO - he's shown (Smallburgh, which includes East Ruston)
    as 1936Q2 (84), and she (ditto) as 1923Q1 (72). So the dates seem
    correct - just seems very odd the stone records them as it does!

    Various possibilities :-
    -A replacement for a damaged or under-sized headstone; maybe also a
    delayed installation and that was the inscription the family/whoever
    specified.

    -A headstone erected and names inscribed while the lairholders were
    still alive which carries the risk of people not dying in the matching
    order.

    -Cremated remains which were buried along with the surviving spouse.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 20 16:39:55 2023
    From a stone I photographed there on Tuesday (2023-10-17). [I think this
    is a text-only group; if someone says it isn't, I'll post the pic.]

    Very clear apart from the "th". All lines are of course centred.
    IN
    LOVING MEMORY OF
    WILLIAM CURTIS
    DIED MAY 27TH 1936
    AGED 86 YEARS.
    ALSO HIS WIFE
    SARAH CURTIS
    DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
    AGED 72 YEARS.
    RESTING IN PEACE

    (All in capitals, though of varying sizes.)

    What puzzled me: on stones I've looked at in the past, "Also" usually
    means a later addition. But here, her date is nearly 13 years _before_
    his. As I say, it's very clear - at least the 1936 and the 192. Any idea
    what's going on?

    Could be a stonemason's error - I know my grandfather's date was wrong
    for many years, and of course advantage was taken of my grandmother's distressed state (so we feel, anyway) to not correct it - but where such
    a glaring error as above has been made, if it _was_ an error, I wouldn't
    have thought that was the explanation.

    Checking with GRO - he's shown (Smallburgh, which includes East Ruston)
    as 1936Q2 (84), and she (ditto) as 1923Q1 (72). So the dates seem
    correct - just seems very odd the stone records them as it does!
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    I'm too lazy to have a bigger ego. - James May, RT 2016/1/23-29

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Graeme Wall@21:1/5 to J. P. Gilliver on Fri Oct 20 17:21:43 2023
    On 20/10/2023 16:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
    From a stone I photographed there on Tuesday (2023-10-17). [I think
    this is a text-only group; if someone says it isn't, I'll post the pic.]

    Very clear apart from the "th". All lines are of course centred.
    IN
    LOVING MEMORY OF
    WILLIAM CURTIS
    DIED MAY 27TH 1936
    AGED 86 YEARS.
    ALSO HIS WIFE
    SARAH CURTIS
    DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
    AGED 72 YEARS.
    RESTING IN PEACE

    (All in capitals, though of varying sizes.)

    What puzzled me: on stones I've looked at in the past, "Also" usually
    means a later addition. But here, her date is nearly 13 years _before_
    his. As I say, it's very clear - at least the 1936 and the 192. Any idea what's going on?

    Could be a stonemason's error - I know my grandfather's date was wrong
    for many years, and of course advantage was taken of my grandmother's distressed state (so we feel, anyway) to not correct it - but where such
    a glaring error as above has been made, if it _was_ an error, I wouldn't
    have thought that was the explanation.

    Checking with GRO - he's shown (Smallburgh, which includes East Ruston)
    as 1936Q2 (84), and she (ditto) as 1923Q1 (72). So the dates seem
    correct - just seems very odd the stone records them as it does!

    Could be space was left for him above her so that he could be added in
    the "proper place" when the time came? Alternatively, their offspring
    decided a new headstone was needed after his death.

    --
    Graeme Wall
    This account not read.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ian Goddard@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 20 18:14:48 2023
    Maybe no stone was erected until he died.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver@21:1/5 to Ian Goddard on Fri Oct 20 20:29:13 2023
    In message <PbCdnRILGekVKK_4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Fri,
    20 Oct 2023 18:14:48, Ian Goddard <ian_ng@austonley.org.uk> writes
    Maybe no stone was erected until he died.

    Seems plausible. Looking at it again now, the style and weathered-ness
    of both lots of lettering are very similar.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    one can't go from `supposed crackpot ideas have been right before' to `we should
    take this latest crackpot idea onboard without making it fight for acceptance like all the previous ones'. - Richard Caley, 2002 February 11 00:02:28

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver@21:1/5 to Graeme Wall on Fri Oct 20 20:27:22 2023
    In message <ugu9en$16erk$2@dont-email.me> at Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:21:43,
    Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
    On 20/10/2023 16:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
    []
    DIED MAY 27TH 1936
    AGED 86 YEARS.
    ALSO HIS WIFE
    SARAH CURTIS
    DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
    []
    Could be space was left for him above her so that he could be added in
    the "proper place" when the time came? Alternatively, their offspring
    decided a new headstone was needed after his death.

    I wondered about that. Plausible.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    one can't go from `supposed crackpot ideas have been right before' to `we should
    take this latest crackpot idea onboard without making it fight for acceptance like all the previous ones'. - Richard Caley, 2002 February 11 00:02:28

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver@21:1/5 to Charles Ellson on Fri Oct 20 20:26:15 2023
    In message <qr85ji511taoubol1bo8cetm4nn4cvjmsf@4ax.com> at Fri, 20 Oct
    2023 17:10:55, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> writes
    On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:39:55 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
    <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
    []
    DIED MAY 27TH 1936
    AGED 86 YEARS.
    ALSO HIS WIFE
    SARAH CURTIS
    DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
    []
    Various possibilities :-
    -A replacement for a damaged or under-sized headstone; maybe also a
    delayed installation and that was the inscription the family/whoever >specified.

    I wondered about those.

    -A headstone erected and names inscribed while the lairholders were
    still alive which carries the risk of people not dying in the matching
    order.

    I don't know the word "lairholders", but guessing it's owners of a
    prebought grave slot, that would make sense.

    -Cremated remains which were buried along with the surviving spouse.

    (At first, I thought "the surviving spouse might object to being
    buried!", but I realise you mean her remains were kept in an urn or
    something until he died. Possible, though I don't get the impression
    cremation was much in vogue at this particular churchyard and date.)
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    one can't go from `supposed crackpot ideas have been right before' to `we should
    take this latest crackpot idea onboard without making it fight for acceptance like all the previous ones'. - Richard Caley, 2002 February 11 00:02:28

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Colin Bignell@21:1/5 to Graeme Wall on Fri Oct 20 21:21:40 2023
    On 20/10/2023 17:21, Graeme Wall wrote:
    On 20/10/2023 16:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
     From a stone I photographed there on Tuesday (2023-10-17). [I think
    this is a text-only group; if someone says it isn't, I'll post the pic.]

    Very clear apart from the "th". All lines are of course centred.
    IN
    LOVING MEMORY OF
    WILLIAM CURTIS
    DIED MAY 27TH 1936
    AGED 86 YEARS.
    ALSO HIS WIFE
    SARAH CURTIS
    DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
    AGED 72 YEARS.
    RESTING IN PEACE

    (All in capitals, though of varying sizes.)

    What puzzled me: on stones I've looked at in the past, "Also" usually
    means a later addition. But here, her date is nearly 13 years _before_
    his. As I say, it's very clear - at least the 1936 and the 192. Any
    idea what's going on?

    Could be a stonemason's error - I know my grandfather's date was wrong
    for many years, and of course advantage was taken of my grandmother's
    distressed state (so we feel, anyway) to not correct it - but where
    such a glaring error as above has been made, if it _was_ an error, I
    wouldn't have thought that was the explanation.

    Checking with GRO - he's shown (Smallburgh, which includes East
    Ruston) as 1936Q2 (84), and she (ditto) as 1923Q1 (72). So the dates
    seem correct - just seems very odd the stone records them as it does!

    Could be space was left for him above her so that he could be added in
    the "proper place" when the time came? Alternatively, their offspring
    decided a new headstone was needed after his death.


    Looking at the photo of the stone on gravestonephotos.com, it does not
    look to me as though the names were entered at different times.


    --
    Colin Bignell

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver@21:1/5 to Colin Bignell on Sat Oct 21 10:51:32 2023
    In message <4aydnTGp6qDefK_4nZ2dnZeNn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> at Fri, 20
    Oct 2023 21:21:40, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> writes
    On 20/10/2023 17:21, Graeme Wall wrote:
    On 20/10/2023 16:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
    []
    DIED MAY 27TH 1936
    []
    SARAH CURTIS
    DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
    []
    Looking at the photo of the stone on gravestonephotos.com, it does not
    look to me as though the names were entered at different times.


    Agreed: my photo gives the same impression - all the lettering looks too similar in style, and weathering (though it isn't very).
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    Lucy Worsley takes tea in Jane Austen's Regency Bath. - TV "Choices" listing, RT 2017-5-27

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Graeme Wall@21:1/5 to J. P. Gilliver on Sat Oct 21 11:41:06 2023
    On 21/10/2023 10:51, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
    Lucy Worsley takes tea in Jane Austen's Regency Bath

    Cold shower, quick!
    --
    Graeme Wall
    This account not read.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Charles Ellson@21:1/5 to G6JPG@255soft.uk on Sat Oct 21 22:35:18 2023
    On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 10:51:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
    <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

    In message <4aydnTGp6qDefK_4nZ2dnZeNn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> at Fri, 20
    Oct 2023 21:21:40, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> writes
    On 20/10/2023 17:21, Graeme Wall wrote:
    On 20/10/2023 16:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
    []
    DIED MAY 27TH 1936
    []
    SARAH CURTIS
    DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
    []
    Looking at the photo of the stone on gravestonephotos.com, it does not
    look to me as though the names were entered at different times.


    Agreed: my photo gives the same impression - all the lettering looks too >similar in style, and weathering (though it isn't very).

    I have seen headstones which have been serially inscribed over a
    prolonged period thus probably not by the same person but the style is
    very much the same; it would depend on the skills and practices of the
    local masons. If it is one with the lettering painted in then they
    could possibly all have been done at the time of a later inscription;
    my grandmother was buried in 1911 but one of my cousins had the
    headstone overhauled in more recent times.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver@21:1/5 to Graeme Wall on Sat Oct 21 22:52:11 2023
    In message <uh09s2$1n40i$3@dont-email.me> at Sat, 21 Oct 2023 11:41:06,
    Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
    On 21/10/2023 10:51, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
    Lucy Worsley takes tea in Jane Austen's Regency Bath

    Cold shower, quick!

    I tried to reply by email, as it's OT, but didn't notice it was a Demon
    address (which fortunately bounced so I know).

    Cold shower, quick!

    That was actually quoted in the Radio Times letters page - someone had
    seen it in a listings magazine and wrote in. RT had cheekily inserted a
    mock-up of a bath with a bare-shouldered Lucy sticking out of it!

    To quote the name of an old US TV series, I love Lucy II - she's fun and informative. (Though I didn't think much of the quiz show. But that
    wasn't her fault.)
    [Lucy II - because I also liked Lucy I. Somewhat dottier, but just as
    much fun IMO. Haven't seen mention of her for years, though (though
    quite a few of hers are on YouTube).]
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Graeme Wall@21:1/5 to J. P. Gilliver on Sun Oct 22 08:26:35 2023
    On 21/10/2023 22:52, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
    In message <uh09s2$1n40i$3@dont-email.me> at Sat, 21 Oct 2023 11:41:06, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
    On 21/10/2023 10:51, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
    Lucy Worsley takes tea in Jane Austen's Regency Bath

    Cold shower, quick!

    I tried to reply by email, as it's OT, but didn't notice it was a Demon address (which fortunately bounced so I know).

    Cold shower, quick!

    That was actually quoted in the Radio Times letters page - someone had
    seen it in a listings magazine and wrote in. RT had cheekily inserted a mock-up of a bath with a bare-shouldered Lucy sticking out of it!

    IIRC she later used such a shot in another programme!


    To quote the name of an old US TV series, I love Lucy II - she's fun and informative. (Though I didn't think much of the quiz show. But that
    wasn't her fault.)

    Quite agree.

    --
    Graeme Wall
    This account not read.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)