death sequence? (East Ruston, Norfolk)

[J. P. Gilliver]

From a stone I photographed there on Tuesday (2023-10-17). [I think this
is a text-only group; if someone says it isn't, I'll post the pic.]

Very clear apart from the "th". All lines are of course centred.
IN
LOVING MEMORY OF
WILLIAM CURTIS
DIED MAY 27TH 1936
AGED 86 YEARS.
ALSO HIS WIFE
SARAH CURTIS
DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
AGED 72 YEARS.
RESTING IN PEACE

(All in capitals, though of varying sizes.)

What puzzled me: on stones I've looked at in the past, "Also" usually
means a later addition. But here, her date is nearly 13 years _before_
his. As I say, it's very clear - at least the 1936 and the 192. Any idea
what's going on?

Could be a stonemason's error - I know my grandfather's date was wrong
for many years, and of course advantage was taken of my grandmother's
distressed state (so we feel, anyway) to not correct it - but where such
a glaring error as above has been made, if it _was_ an error, I wouldn't
have thought that was the explanation.

Checking with GRO - he's shown (Smallburgh, which includes East Ruston)
as 1936Q2 (84), and she (ditto) as 1923Q1 (72). So the dates seem
correct - just seems very odd the stone records them as it does!

[Charles Ellson]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:39:55 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"

Post by J. P. Gilliver
From a stone I photographed there on Tuesday (2023-10-17). [I think this
is a text-only group; if someone says it isn't, I'll post the pic.]
Very clear apart from the "th". All lines are of course centred.
IN
LOVING MEMORY OF
WILLIAM CURTIS
DIED MAY 27TH 1936
AGED 86 YEARS.
ALSO HIS WIFE
SARAH CURTIS
DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
AGED 72 YEARS.
RESTING IN PEACE
(All in capitals, though of varying sizes.)
What puzzled me: on stones I've looked at in the past, "Also" usually
means a later addition. But here, her date is nearly 13 years _before_
his. As I say, it's very clear - at least the 1936 and the 192. Any idea
what's going on?
Could be a stonemason's error - I know my grandfather's date was wrong
for many years, and of course advantage was taken of my grandmother's
distressed state (so we feel, anyway) to not correct it - but where such
a glaring error as above has been made, if it _was_ an error, I wouldn't
have thought that was the explanation.
Checking with GRO - he's shown (Smallburgh, which includes East Ruston)
as 1936Q2 (84), and she (ditto) as 1923Q1 (72). So the dates seem
correct - just seems very odd the stone records them as it does!

Various possibilities :-
-A replacement for a damaged or under-sized headstone; maybe also a
delayed installation and that was the inscription the family/whoever
specified.

-A headstone erected and names inscribed while the lairholders were
still alive which carries the risk of people not dying in the matching
order.

-Cremated remains which were buried along with the surviving spouse.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:39:55 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"

[]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by J. P. Gilliver
DIED MAY 27TH 1936
AGED 86 YEARS.
ALSO HIS WIFE
SARAH CURTIS
DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]

[]

Post by Charles Ellson
Various possibilities :-
-A replacement for a damaged or under-sized headstone; maybe also a
delayed installation and that was the inscription the family/whoever
specified.

I wondered about those.

Post by Charles Ellson
-A headstone erected and names inscribed while the lairholders were
still alive which carries the risk of people not dying in the matching
order.

I don't know the word "lairholders", but guessing it's owners of a
prebought grave slot, that would make sense.

Post by Charles Ellson
-Cremated remains which were buried along with the surviving spouse.

(At first, I thought "the surviving spouse might object to being
buried!", but I realise you mean her remains were kept in an urn or
something until he died. Possible, though I don't get the impression
cremation was much in vogue at this particular churchyard and date.)

[Graeme Wall]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
From a stone I photographed there on Tuesday (2023-10-17). [I think
this is a text-only group; if someone says it isn't, I'll post the pic.]
Very clear apart from the "th". All lines are of course centred.
IN
LOVING MEMORY OF
WILLIAM CURTIS
DIED MAY 27TH 1936
AGED 86 YEARS.
ALSO HIS WIFE
SARAH CURTIS
DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
AGED 72 YEARS.
RESTING IN PEACE
(All in capitals, though of varying sizes.)
What puzzled me: on stones I've looked at in the past, "Also" usually
means a later addition. But here, her date is nearly 13 years _before_
his. As I say, it's very clear - at least the 1936 and the 192. Any idea
what's going on?
Could be a stonemason's error - I know my grandfather's date was wrong
for many years, and of course advantage was taken of my grandmother's
distressed state (so we feel, anyway) to not correct it - but where such
a glaring error as above has been made, if it _was_ an error, I wouldn't
have thought that was the explanation.
Checking with GRO - he's shown (Smallburgh, which includes East Ruston)
as 1936Q2 (84), and she (ditto) as 1923Q1 (72). So the dates seem
correct - just seems very odd the stone records them as it does!

Could be space was left for him above her so that he could be added in
the "proper place" when the time came? Alternatively, their offspring
decided a new headstone was needed after his death.

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by J. P. Gilliver
DIED MAY 27TH 1936
AGED 86 YEARS.
ALSO HIS WIFE
SARAH CURTIS
DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]

[]

Post by Graeme Wall
Could be space was left for him above her so that he could be added in
the "proper place" when the time came? Alternatively, their offspring
decided a new headstone was needed after his death.

I wondered about that. Plausible.

[Colin Bignell]

Post by Graeme Wall

 From a stone I photographed there on Tuesday (2023-10-17). [I think
this is a text-only group; if someone says it isn't, I'll post the pic.]
Very clear apart from the "th". All lines are of course centred.
IN
LOVING MEMORY OF
WILLIAM CURTIS
DIED MAY 27TH 1936
AGED 86 YEARS.
ALSO HIS WIFE
SARAH CURTIS
DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
AGED 72 YEARS.
RESTING IN PEACE
(All in capitals, though of varying sizes.)
What puzzled me: on stones I've looked at in the past, "Also" usually
means a later addition. But here, her date is nearly 13 years _before_
his. As I say, it's very clear - at least the 1936 and the 192. Any
idea what's going on?
Could be a stonemason's error - I know my grandfather's date was wrong
for many years, and of course advantage was taken of my grandmother's
distressed state (so we feel, anyway) to not correct it - but where
such a glaring error as above has been made, if it _was_ an error, I
wouldn't have thought that was the explanation.
Checking with GRO - he's shown (Smallburgh, which includes East
Ruston) as 1936Q2 (84), and she (ditto) as 1923Q1 (72). So the dates
seem correct - just seems very odd the stone records them as it does!

Could be space was left for him above her so that he could be added in
the "proper place" when the time came? Alternatively, their offspring
decided a new headstone was needed after his death.

Looking at the photo of the stone on gravestonephotos.com, it does not
look to me as though the names were entered at different times.

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by J. P. Gilliver
DIED MAY 27TH 1936

[]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by J. P. Gilliver
SARAH CURTIS
DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]

[]

Post by Colin Bignell
Looking at the photo of the stone on gravestonephotos.com, it does not
look to me as though the names were entered at different times.

Agreed: my photo gives the same impression - all the lettering looks too
similar in style, and weathering (though it isn't very).

[Graeme Wall]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Lucy Worsley takes tea in Jane Austen's Regency Bath

Cold shower, quick!

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Lucy Worsley takes tea in Jane Austen's Regency Bath

Cold shower, quick!

I tried to reply by email, as it's OT, but didn't notice it was a Demon
address (which fortunately bounced so I know).

Post by Graeme Wall
Cold shower, quick!

That was actually quoted in the Radio Times letters page - someone had
seen it in a listings magazine and wrote in. RT had cheekily inserted a
mock-up of a bath with a bare-shouldered Lucy sticking out of it!

To quote the name of an old US TV series, I love Lucy II - she's fun and
informative. (Though I didn't think much of the quiz show. But that
wasn't her fault.)
[Lucy II - because I also liked Lucy I. Somewhat dottier, but just as
much fun IMO. Haven't seen mention of her for years, though (though
quite a few of hers are on YouTube).]

[Graeme Wall]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Lucy Worsley takes tea in Jane Austen's Regency Bath

Cold shower, quick!

I tried to reply by email, as it's OT, but didn't notice it was a Demon
address (which fortunately bounced so I know).

Post by Graeme Wall
Cold shower, quick!

That was actually quoted in the Radio Times letters page - someone had
seen it in a listings magazine and wrote in. RT had cheekily inserted a
mock-up of a bath with a bare-shouldered Lucy sticking out of it!

IIRC she later used such a shot in another programme!

Post by J. P. Gilliver
To quote the name of an old US TV series, I love Lucy II - she's fun and
informative. (Though I didn't think much of the quiz show. But that
wasn't her fault.)

Quite agree.

[Charles Ellson]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 10:51:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by J. P. Gilliver
DIED MAY 27TH 1936

[]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by J. P. Gilliver
SARAH CURTIS
DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]

[]

Post by Colin Bignell
Looking at the photo of the stone on gravestonephotos.com, it does not
look to me as though the names were entered at different times.

Agreed: my photo gives the same impression - all the lettering looks too
similar in style, and weathering (though it isn't very).

I have seen headstones which have been serially inscribed over a
prolonged period thus probably not by the same person but the style is
very much the same; it would depend on the skills and practices of the
local masons. If it is one with the lettering painted in then they
could possibly all have been done at the time of a later inscription;
my grandmother was buried in 1911 but one of my cousins had the
headstone overhauled in more recent times.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 10:51:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by J. P. Gilliver
DIED MAY 27TH 1936

[]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by J. P. Gilliver
SARAH CURTIS
DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]

[]

Post by Colin Bignell
Looking at the photo of the stone on gravestonephotos.com, it does not
look to me as though the names were entered at different times.

Agreed: my photo gives the same impression - all the lettering looks too
similar in style, and weathering (though it isn't very).

I have seen headstones which have been serially inscribed over a
prolonged period thus probably not by the same person but the style is
very much the same; it would depend on the skills and practices of the
local masons. If it is one with the lettering painted in then they
could possibly all have been done at the time of a later inscription;
my grandmother was buried in 1911 but one of my cousins had the
headstone overhauled in more recent times.

Can't remember if this is a text-only 'group - so I've attempted to add
a photo. (It's incised, not painted.)

[Ian Goddard]

Maybe no stone was erected until he died.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Ian Goddard
Maybe no stone was erected until he died.

Seems plausible. Looking at it again now, the style and weathered-ness
of both lots of lettering are very similar.