On 5 Jun 2007, at 22:55, Tony Pottrell wrote: > 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, So presumably you are now paying the local councils or parish officers to tend them, or can you visit them all? > which is better than I had hoped for but still > a long cry from the 50 or so burials records I've found... There is usually more in a burial register than on a tombstone, so perhaps you are luckier than you think. > 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. I do hope my council concentrates its efforts and finances on educating the children, lighting the street, keeping up the weekly refuse collections, plus the myriad other items on the list, before attempting this exercise, AND especially the care of the documents I want to look in order to do my research! If descendants don't already know where their ancestors' graves are, presumably one or more of the intervening generations didn't think it important enough to pass on that information. I live nowhere near any of my ancestors' burial places, and if the various local councils need to re-use the space, so be it. I shall continue lighting candles and saying prayers for the souls of all my relatives, known and unknown. Viewing a stone wouldn't change that. Neither of my parents have a burial place, nor a memorial of any kind. So unless someone reads my paperwork they could be wasting a lot of time looking. Oh yes, they were decently done! Cremation and scattering - as per instructions - no money for memorial entry in the book. Maybe if I win the lottery I might do that, but the cost is huge. As for me - medical science can have me - then I shan't take up earth space! Then it's cremation and scattering for me too. With family scattered (no pun intended) all over the country (and world) it really is no use expecting or hoping anyone to have the time and money and inclination to tend my grave. Maybe I wouldn't want to be remembered either! > T > > Ps. Aye, I meant genealogical... I have a new laptop and the > keyboard's > a bit different ;) PS - I'm using a laptop which has been with the engineers for over three months, and am having to dredge my poor memory for all those keyboard shortcuts I used to know! 'Tis a wonder I can still type at all! J > 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