Perhaps we should return to the days of Charnel Houses. In any case if families looked after the graves there probably wouldn't be a problem, provided each successive generation did their duty, and perhaps stayed living near enough to do the caring. Also the burial registers will contain more information than the average tombstone, particularly those which have deteriorated over the 100+ years referred to in the quoted article. Perhaps others could suggest an alternative solution to those of us wishing to bury our dead somewhere? J ps geanlogical presumably genealogical? On 5 Jun 2007, at 12:42, Tony Pottrell wrote: > http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2362291.html?menu= > > Am I the only one who finds this very worrying? Not only from a > geanlogical point of view (trying trace a grave is hard enough!) but > seems somewhat disrespectful as well... > > T

I'd prefer not to be re-used, thank you very much. Cremation would be good enough for me Sorry about the pun, couldn't resist the subject heading Chris Graves, Colchester ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gen Mail 2" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 7:57 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-CAMS] Gov't Plans to re-use graves?? > Perhaps we should return to the days of Charnel Houses. > > In any case if families looked after the graves there probably > wouldn't be a problem, provided each successive generation did their > duty, and perhaps stayed living near enough to do the caring. > > Also the burial registers will contain more information than the > average tombstone, particularly those which have deteriorated over > the 100+ years referred to in the quoted article. > > Perhaps others could suggest an alternative solution to those of us > wishing to bury our dead somewhere? > > J > > ps geanlogical presumably genealogical? > > > > On 5 Jun 2007, at 12:42, Tony Pottrell wrote: > >> http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2362291.html?menu= >> >> Am I the only one who finds this very worrying? Not only from a >> geanlogical point of view (trying trace a grave is hard enough!) but >> seems somewhat disrespectful as well... >> >> T > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

If I knew where my ancestors were buried, I wouldn't have any objection to "doing my duty". I'm sure many people would feel the same. So far I've only found 5, which is better than I had hoped for but still a long cry from the 50 or so burials records I've found... If the councils made an effort to track down the family before deciding to recycle a grave then fair enough, but I doubt that will happen. T Ps. Aye, I meant genealogical... I have a new laptop and the keyboard's a bit different ;) Gen Mail 2 wrote: > Perhaps we should return to the days of Charnel Houses. > > In any case if families looked after the graves there probably > wouldn't be a problem, provided each successive generation did their > duty, and perhaps stayed living near enough to do the caring. > > Also the burial registers will contain more information than the > average tombstone, particularly those which have deteriorated over > the 100+ years referred to in the quoted article. > > Perhaps others could suggest an alternative solution to those of us > wishing to bury our dead somewhere? > > J > > ps geanlogical presumably genealogical? > > > > On 5 Jun 2007, at 12:42, Tony Pottrell wrote: > > >> http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2362291.html?menu= >> >> Am I the only one who finds this very worrying? Not only from a >> geanlogical point of view (trying trace a grave is hard enough!) but >> seems somewhat disrespectful as well... >> >> T >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >