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

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.