From: rail@greywall.demon.co.uk   
      
   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: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)