From: charlesellson@btinternet.com
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:39:55 +0100, "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!
>
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: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
