Re: St.James churchyard
 

ya you learn quickly on here:D:D

Re: St.James churchyard
 

The point I was anxious to make regarding this proposal has nothing to do with ossuaries. It has to do with the practice of using graveyards for other purposes while the previous occupants are still in situ.
Surely that is wrong, immoral and sacriligeous.
As far as I am concerned providing the bodies were removed they could turn the wretched place into a three ring bluddy circus if they were so inclined. I mean, how would it be if they wanted Burnley Road cemetery for a new Tesco and all they did was remove the gravestones and started building, do you think anyone would object?

Re: St.James churchyard
 

I would agree with you if that cemetery was still in use; but as far as I am aware it has been dormant for many years. I do not know when the last burial was there – no doubt Retlaw will come on here and give us a date. Furthermore, I have not seen any flowers or symbols placed on any of the remaining gravestones. In fact, I suspect that some of those gravestones may contain nothing but soil beneath. Someone may wish to confirm that. So therefore there is no personal or, emotional attachment to anyone resting there although invariably some will have descendants currently residing within the Borough

I would also state the case that some of those who may still rest there or whose remains have now been removed would have been the people who built up Accy and its industry in the 18th and 19th century into what then would have been one of the most prosperous towns, for its size, in the country; we only have to look around and see their legacy in the form of the marvellous late Georgian and Victorian architecture, of which St James’s burial ground forms a focal point. These buildings and their immediate environment now provide one of the town’s greatest assets; the fact that they have not been exploited as such has resulted in a great cost to the town.

If those people who now lay in the churchyard were now still alive, what do you think their attitude would be? I suspect it would certainly not be a mixture of overt religious sentimentality combined with toxic luddism but would in fact be one which embraces the Victorian ideals of progress and change and an attitude which says get on with it. Of course, this is all academic; I doubt if we shall ever see the money for this scheme (or the Arcade one) to go ahead.

Re: St.James churchyard
 

Hear hear, well said.

Re: St.James churchyard
 

Errrm, actually 'T', the Victorian age was characterised by overt sentimentality in all areas of society and nowhere was this expressed more strongly than in matters of mortality and the rituals and parephenalia of death. Indeed, poor Queen Victoria managed to turn mourning into a fashionable and very profitable national industry. From which I am sure that the idea of turning a burial ground, with burials still in it and a churchyard burial ground at that, into an area of, as I said before, facile entertainment, would be abhorent and a cause of national scandal to our Victorian forebears.

I am not being in the least luddite in objecting to the proposal as it currently stands. I just want the bodies removed and reburied before we commence holding performances on top of them. At base, it is a matter of simple respect and courtesy. I am surprised and a little amazed that you cannot see this.

Re: St.James churchyard
 

I doubt if after all this time there would be much left in the way of actual bodies, more like a few piles of bones and some coffin handles. That would require archaeology to sort it out and that don't come cheap. Ain't gonna happen.

Anyway we are walking over our ancestors' bones unknowingly all the time in the form of Roman, Anglo Saxon etc cemeteries, plague pits and the like. Nobody seems to mind about that.

Re: St.James churchyard
 

Because we don't know where those cemeteries, plague pits and the like are.

Re: St.James churchyard
 

Manchester's a pretty good bet, more specifically Old Trafford. ;) :D







Bring on the howls of outrage & indignation from the Manky U fans :s_aim1:

Re: St.James churchyard
 

The quantity or condition of the remains is immaterial. If the cost is prohibitive then it must be the project that fails or more money must be found.

To walk upon a grave unknowingly is one thing. But to know and to do it anyway speaks volumes about the kind of society that we have become.

Would you be as sanguine if it were your grandparents or parents graves that were at risk, Susie?

Re: St.James churchyard
 

And in any case I do not think that the case for improved access has been presented at all convincingly. What is wrong with maintaining the area as a place of quiet contemplation amid the bustle of the town?
What is so onerous about having to walk around it?
It strikes me that this is yet another example of HBC staff desperately seeking to prove that they are worth their salary and benefits.
It would not surprise me to discover that the originator of this proposal, who has much to say concerning the visual impact of the current graveyard, or lack of it, does not even live in the Borough.

Re: St.James churchyard
 

The short answer is yes. Behind my house is a cemetery opened in 1874 and now closed. It is full to bursting with thousands of graves only some of which have memorials. There is no empty space. It is used every day by hundreds of people to get from A to B and many of them walk on the grass rather than keep to the tarmac path. Children play there and it is a welcome green space. As yet no one has complained about sacrilege and all the bodies are still sleeping peacefully. To me once someone is dead what happens to their body is immaterial. They are gone.

I absolutely agree, when they've gone they've gone.
We won't find any of the interred complaining about what's going on on top of their peaceful repose.
I just wonder though, they or their relatives paid for a monument or stone to be place as a memorial, at what time does that contract of respect for the dead and the cost for their trimmings become just so much paving stone?
Personally a quick whoomf up the chimney I'll be gone no problem, no grave for relatives to feel guilty about not tending, let them have the occasional thought about me in similar vain to which I consider the loved ones that went before me.
But, at which point do we remove and tarmac over the past only to say, "oops that was a bit previous of us wasn't it? Showed no real respect, still, we now have another area that no-one knows what to do with".

Re: St.James churchyard
 

Thank you Less. And I don't see that leaving the stones round the edge of the area or using them for paving is any worse than leaving them in situ and letting them fall over. I also think that the proposed development is quite respectful, not tasteless and makes use of a bit of green space that otherwise is just a quick through route.

Re: St.James churchyard
 

None of the grave markers that are at present forming a foot path round the church we ever stood up, all were laid flat, or on 4 short pedastals.
I have enough information on that grave yard whereby they could all be put back where they belong.
One of the reasons I was contacted by a committee member was, they suspected some of the burials in the late 1800's & early 1900's, were not deep enough, and could cause a problem with landscaping.
Take a close look around the burial area and several depressions are visible where the graves have sunk, some of those sites are vaults, and the coffins in the may be in a reasonable state.

Retlaw.

Re: St.James churchyard
 

Oh Dear, A-B I suspect it is you yourself who is suffering from the mawkish sentimentality of the late Victorian age. While I would certainly agree that by the latter part of the Great Queen's reign, the business of burials had developed into what would now be termed a cutting-edge industry and that the process of mourning had become institutionally ritualised, the same cannot be said of the earlier part of her life. While I would not be prepared to specify any turning point – probably somewhere between the death of her beloved Albert in 1861 and the passing of the Burial Grounds Act in the mid-1880’s - then certainly the earlier period was characterised by the wanton destruction of existing graveyards in the name of economic and social progress

A case in point is what occurred here in London in the mid-1860’s. The Midland Railway Company designated a terminus at St Pancras; there was one problem – a cemetery lay in the way. What did they do? They disinterred about 10,000 corpses and reburied them elsewhere. But did they dig up the entire contents of the cemetery? No, just the ones that were lying on top (that of, course, being the common practice right up until the mid-19c). There was, of course, an outcry but that probably had more to do with one of the periodic outbreaks of cholera which was occurring at the time and was linked to the mass exhumation. It did not, of course, stop the railways from further encroaching over sacred burial ground; some years later, they wrecked the St Sepulchres graveyard at Holborn when the viaduct was constructed there. There are numerous other examples, both in London and in other cities and large towns. The crucial point is not that they could be sure of removing all the bodies, but that they actually knew that human remains would be left in situ.

You can of course, argue that the railways were an economic necessity, but what did the Victorians do next? Why, they turned their old cemeteries and their new, out of town ones into their own version of common entertainment – they tidied up the former and they landscaped the latter, all so that they could go for their weekend strolls and picnics while saying hello to their recently and dearly departed, while at the same time, no doubt enjoying some mirth and facile jollity.