We may be dead and we may be gone

[venta]

At the end of last week, there was a story in the London Evening Standard about some workmen causing havoc in a Paddington graveyard.

"Workmen have desecrated an 18th century burial ground by destroying scores of ancient tombs," trumpeted the opening sentence, "some of which belonged to children."

Now, really this is quite a dull story. Some workmen had to dig out a wall, they uncovered some ancient gravestones, they smashed them to continue their digging. Not really what they should have done (in my opinion), but hardly screaming-banner-headline stuff.

What confuses me is the idea that, to make things worse, some of the graves belonged to children. I understand the LES wants to try and make every story as dramatic as it can, but is there actually anyone, anywhere, who thinks it worse to desecrate a child's grave than an adult's?

I've always struggled with the idea that a child's death is more tragic than an adult's (in the abstract, I mean - I understand it's a tragedy to, say, the child's parents). But that this should carry on into the hereafter to make a child's grave more sacred than an adult's... well, I just don't get it.

Comments

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure there's anything to "get" other than a rather weak attempt to enliven some dull news.

[venta.livejournal.com]

Well yes... but I assume they'd only attempt to enliven it in ways that make sense. "Tombstones smashed - even though some of them belonged to people who liked hats" makes no sense. In my mind, what they did write doesn't really make any more - so I assume that the LES, at least, believes some people will find the idea of desecrating children's graves more scandalous.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Either that or children are just a kind of general purpose news condiment and there wasn't much thought given to the details.

[venta.livejournal.com]

general purpose news condiment

On a t-shirt for Bea, post-haste, please :)

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

I'll get right on it!

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Mm, and a "general purpose news condiment on board" sticker for the car window.

[sushidog.livejournal.com]

But won't somebody think of the (long dead) children?

Erm, but yes. It would have been nicer if they'd moved, rather than smashed, the stones, but they're just stones, not bodies, and even if they'd been bodies, they're just old bones, not living people. I think the dead still outnumber the living, but all the same, there's only so much respect we can pay them and their bones and their stones.

[venta.livejournal.com]

But won't somebody think?

:)

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

Possibly the interesting part of that is that only 'some' belonged to children, rather than 'most'. Given C18th London's infant mortality rates, etc.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

Sure, but diseases like typhoid and cholera would often mean several children from one family dying around the same time and ending up in a shared grave. And that's those lucky enough to be able to afford a plot and a tombstone.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

True, and I suppose we should also take into account that if they were smashing stones rather than flinging bodies around, it's likely a fair few of the stones will be completely illegible by now so there's no knowing who they belonged to.

[beckyc.livejournal.com]

Workmen have desecrated an 18th century burial ground by destroying scores of ancient tombs

To me that sounds like there were corpse parts flying every which way. Which, from your later comments, there were not, they broke some rocks with grave details on. Of people who died so long ago that nobody would have a clue who they were anyway.

In other countries, your burial plot isn't for ever, so *shrug*. Over the course of history, there have been a lot of burials, how far back are we supposed to go?

On an unrelated note, does this mean you haven't died from being ill on Saturday? I do hope so.

[venta.livejournal.com]

I am not dead of ill. It wasn't very serious ill, so I wasn't very worried about the death :)

[beckyc.livejournal.com]

That is good to know. It would have been really embarrassing not to have noticed you were a zombie.

The Book of the Film

[marjory.livejournal.com]

They probably ought to have moved the headstones but then there probably also ought to have been a protocol in place for that if it's such a big deal. It sort of is, but then look at how Grade II etc listed buildings are treated and neglected.

The interesting part for me is that the stones were already buried and laid flat, so I am wondering what objections there were to them being moved and covered up e.g. 100 years ago. I know that London graveyards were notoriously full up by the end of the 19th century, hence the big cemeteries out at Mortlake etc. It also used to be taken fairly for granted that coffins etc. would be moved anyway. There is half a chance that those who were originally buried under the stones were moved elsewhere back then or previously, even the itty bitty kiddiwinks (nope, I'm not up for the sentimentality part here either. On average, those buried with costly headstones would not even have been the great disenfranchised, forsaken and overlooked in life.).

To me it would be more interesting if they can find that out. Were the actual bodies relocated in an official capacity? Was it really fair enough that the headstones were stuck under the garden for drainage etc? Is there a record of this or are we looking at a fin de siècle hush up? WE SHOULD BE TOLD!

Re: The Book of the Film

[venta.livejournal.com]

I have a feeling that my dad told me that during the building of the new church hall at St Cuthbert's in Darlington loads of old and hopelessly dilapidated headstones were cleared. People thought it would be terrible if they were removed from the graveyard - so they were broken up and used as hardcore in the foundations. They're still *in* the graveyard!

I may be mis-remembering any number of those details, though.

[venta.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Also, I've no idea how old a grave ought to be to be called "ancient", but I'm pretty sure 18thC. isn't really good enough.

[beckyc.livejournal.com]

Well, if you're really interested in that sort of thing, the British Museum have an interesting document on their policy for human remains here. And you can get to the DCMS policy here

I had to read it all when I was doing an archaeology course and I have since forgotten most of it :-).

[exspelunca.livejournal.com]

18th century is about right and they are the hardcore under the pavings. Those in better nick were preserved snd set up again but I doubt they are in any serious relationship with the relevant bones. Every now and then the council grasscutter knocks over one of the remaining ones and the base is dug out and the broken top bit stuck back in so inscriptions get further and further into the soil.

[stegzy.livejournal.com]

I love reading stories like that. Not because of the horridness that befouls people but because of the crap journalism favoured by that sort of newspaper.

Are you aware of nregions?

[ulfilias.livejournal.com]

Children are percived as innocents as they have yet to be corrupted, they also have not had much time to have a life. An old man who dies prematurely a year or two from death versus a child who has 60-80yrs to live ???

I must admit years back as a kid, watching a TV show and seeing a man have to choose between his wife and his child.....They both chose the child. I was thinking WTF, save the wife and have another one, have two !

[ringbark.livejournal.com]

As a kid, you shouldn't have been thinking "WTF" at all. Or had you been corrupted yourself by that point, being no longer innocent?1

I think a major part of the story may actually be related to the ES having recently run a campaign against *new* unmarked graves for newly dead children. But that may just be my cynicism.

Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. -- Ambrose Bierce

1 I'm slightly worried by my first interaction with an LJ user being halfway to facetious.