cemetary, council and removal of personal obejcts from grave.

Humphrey10

Person_one wrote: »

I prefer it to this:

It wouldn't take much effort to remove those boxes of rubbish and returf the plots, then it would be a massive improvement on before.

Look at the lovely, well maintained graves in the background, with just flowers/plants on them.

londonsurrey

I suspect the topsoil digging is in preparation for seeding it with grass.

meritaten

Humphrey10 wrote: »

It wouldn't take much effort to remove those boxes of rubbish and returf the plots, then it would be a massive improvement on before.

Look at the lovely, well maintained graves in the background, with just flowers/plants on them.

yeah - lovely well maintained headstones - do you see any sign anyone has actualy BEEN there? any flowers? apart from the obviously fake ones stuck in the ground? actually - can you see any grave pots for people to put flowers in? the only ones I can see are to the side of headstone or have them integral to the headstones. to me it looks like these people have been interred and forgotten. but never mind that - it DOES look neat and tidy.

coolcait

meritaten wrote: »

In other cultures it would be seen as normal.

Which other cultures?

American cemeteries have been cited as an example of the "lawn only" approach.

Italian cemeteries have been mentioned as having a more 'minimalist' approach.

Thinking of other countries where I have seen cemeteries, the approach is also 'simple flowers, maybe a votive light'.

So, I'm curious about which other cultures have a tendency to decorate graves in the way shown in that photo.

mumps

Humphrey10 wrote: »

The problem, for some people, is that it is sometimes not just a teddy or a plastic rose. It's a big pile of brightly coloured noisy tacky tat, a horrible eyesore visible from a long way away.

The people who have the grave that you describe as a horrile eyesore might think my fathers plain unadorned grave is an eyesore. My father's grave is my business, their loved ones graves are their business. Why would I want to judge, when I go to the graveyard there is only one grave that matters to me, well not quite true as my grandparents are buried close to my father but they are the only two graves that matter to me. As I said before I would never walk across a grave but other than that I take no notice.

Just wonder how people feel about not having flowers as Jewish people might be ofended? Would it be reasonale to say non Jewish people shouldn't have gaudy flowers as it is traditional for Jewish people to put stones on the grave. I wonder if Jewish people would have the stones removed?

coolcait

Welshwoofs wrote: »

Well as has been said (a number of times), if the council didn't give the notice outlined in its regulations then the relatives have solid grounds for complaint.

I personally don't understand why they removed topsoil, unless perhaps those particular graves had ornimental chippings on and those were against regulation? It'd certainly be something I'd query if I were one of the plot owners.

I think that 'stones on the grave' have been mentioned in earlier posts - possibly ornamental chippings? That's not part of the regulations.

One of the photos clearly shows 'kerb' type stones. Again, the regulations don't allow that kind of boundary marking around graves.

So, the topsoil has been removed. I appreciate that this will be distressing to the families - in a number of ways. Particularly if they didn't get the proper notice of the action being taken.

However, I would expect the Council to lay turf on the graves as soon as possible. For the sake of the families, and to comply with the Council's own 'lawn only' policy.

Humphrey10

meritaten wrote: »

do you see any sign anyone has actualy BEEN there?

It's a graveyard, not a place to show off. If you visit a grave, you don't need to leave a flashing sign saying 'LOOK AT ME!!!!! I VISIT THIS GRAVE!!!!'. Lots of people visit graves but don't put things on them.
Also, so what if no-one has visited? The dead people won't know either way. Graveyards are for the living, if they feel no reason to visit the grave then they have no need to. People grieve in different ways, they remember in different ways. Some people like to visit graves daily, some people once a year, and any time period in between, and some people never. None of these choices are wrong, IMO.

meritaten wrote: »

to me it looks like these people have been interred and forgotten.

Whereas to me, it looks like those graves have been treated with dignity and respect. And the graves covered in crap look like they have been desecrated. It's all personal preference, which is why I think clear rules that are strictly enforced would help avoid any conflict.

lostinrates

meritaten wrote: »

It offends my eye - it doesnt offend anything else - that person was well loved obviously!
In other cultures it would be seen as normal. here in the west death is NOT treated with bright colours and fun.
and the more I think about that - the less it offends me - why shouldnt death be accompanied by colour and fun? Does it have to be all black and restraint? many funeral services now are more celebrations of peoples lives - why are graveyards getting more restrained than they were during Victorian times?

Actually, the context removed, it does not offend my eyes. I rather like it. But then i like gardens with armies of gnomes too. Love them. I find the picture rather beautiful...in the context if something private and personal.

I look at it and see not just someone greiving someone well loved, but imagine greiving for someone living in my family who was not moving on, possibly impacting other family members, like children. And i imagine mourning next to that and wonder if those struggling to move on them selves might think as you did..that person is well loved, was my love less?

Greif like all very real things can be ...i am trying to thing of the least offensive way to put this, but ...sometimes in grief people can become almost compeitive.

Anyway, my point is, i do not find it ugly, i like it, but i di think it inappropriate in a place where others might have different wishes. If the whole group want to have it and it were agreed then sure.


The thing i find more influncing to my opinion is the idea of victorian tombs. These are amazing, more individual and beautiful than those i have seen today, and there perhaps i see your point more easily. Thank you for that, i shall question myself over than overnight.

meritaten

coolcait wrote: »

Which other cultures?

American cemeteries have been cited as an example of the "lawn only" approach.

Italian cemeteries have been mentioned as having a more 'minimalist' approach.

Thinking of other countries where I have seen cemeteries, the approach is also 'simple flowers, maybe a votive light'.

So, I'm curious about which other cultures have a tendency to decorate graves in the way shown in that photo.

Eastern cultures where they venerate the ancestors. where they take the family to offer flowers, food and wine - and often decorate the graves.
I dont know of other countries which have just a votive light? enlighten us? do they keep that going? for how long?

Humphrey10

mumps wrote: »

Just wonder how people feel about not having flowers as Jewish people might be ofended? Would it be reasonale to say non Jewish people shouldn't have gaudy flowers as it is traditional for Jewish people to put stones on the grave. I wonder if Jewish people would have the stones removed?

I would imagine if someone wanted a traditional Jewish grave, they would choose a Jewish graveyard.
If someone had chosen a graveyard that says 'no flowers', then flowers should not be put on graves.
If someone had chosen a graveyard that allows flowers, then people are allowed to put flowers on graves.
The same for all other objects.
If the rules are clear and frequently enforced, I don't see the problem.