Re: As a matter of interest (was Re: Vatican trying to avoid baptism by proxy)

In message <V1BWj.17731$CE1.5637@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
          "Bruce Remick" <remick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> 
> "Graeme Wall" <Graeme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:6f46399f4f%Graeme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In message <vtqWj.42303$KJ1.30630@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >          "Bruce Remick" <remick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Graeme Wall" <Graeme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> news:91bdc9e4f%Graeme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > In message <OOfWj.42235$KJ1.28368@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> >          "Bruce Remick" <remick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> "Graeme Wall" <Graeme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> >> news:ff30b49e4f%Graeme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> > In message <R85Wj.362$xF6.264@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> >> >          "Bruce Remick" <remick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Graeme Wall" <Graeme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:42f6699e4f%Graeme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >> > In message <28XVj.42193$KJ1.26127@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> >> >> >          "Bruce Remick" <remick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Graeme Wall" <Graeme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> news:8f66389e4f%Graeme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >> >> > In message <k2MVj.73700$y05.70842@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> >> >> >> >          "Bruce Remick" <remick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> "Graeme Wall" <Graeme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message
> >> >> >> >> >> news:ab34e59d4f%Graeme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >> >> >> > In message <zaFVj.1429$yP7.901@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >          "Bruce Remick" <remick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Graeme Wall" <Graeme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> message
> >> >> >> >> >> >> news:f1b3da9d4f%Graeme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In message <cyCVj.281$CE1.31@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >          "Bruce Remick" <remick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > [snip]
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Simple courtesy, like respecting an ancient trail
or
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> crumbling
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ruin.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > would consider walking (or skiing)
indiscriminately 
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > over
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > marked
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > graves  in established cemeteries to be somewhat
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > disrespectful.
> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > How do you cope with the average English Church?
> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >> > > You lost me there.  I don't live in England.  And I
don't
> >> >> >> >> >> > > get
> >> >> >> >> >> > > the
> >> >> >> >> >> > > connection  to walking or skiing over graves.
> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > People are buried in the aisles so as you walk through
the
> >> >> >> >> >> > church
> >> >> >> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> >> >> > have  to walk on the graves.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Well, having visited Westminster Abbey for one, tour
guides 
> >> >> >> >> >> seem
> >> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> >> encourage strolling over certain "graves"
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Why the quotes?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No one would realize there were people entombed under the
floor
> >> >> >> >> unless
> >> >> >> >> they
> >> >> >> >> were told so.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So the carving saying Here Lies Piegi McMuppet, Relict of
Kermit
> >> >> >> > McMuppet,
> >> >> >> > Died 21st Ian 1763'  isn't a clue?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If it's on the wall, I'd presume McPuppet was interred in a
wall 
> >> >> >> vault
> >> >> >> near
> >> >> >> the carving.  If he were buried directly beneath where people 
> >> >> >> always
> >> >> >> walked,  I presume future foot traffic was expected.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So you are talking about a memorial, not a grave stone.
> >> >>
> >> >> I thought that was what YOU were talking about with your example
of
> >> >> memorial  carvings, responding to my mention of Westminster Abbey.

> >> >> Both
> >> >> a
> >> >> carved  inscription on a wall and a grave stone would be
considered
> >> >> memorials.  Otherwise, I don't recall seeing grave stones inside
> >> >> buildings-- crypts and  vaults, maybe.  In buildings like
Westminster
> >> >> Abbey, it's often unclear  exactly where the individual
memorialized 
> >> >> on a
> >> >> wall plaque is interred.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > It's many years since I've been in the Abbey, but I suspect it is
much 
> >> > the
> >> > same as other major English churches of the same era, you will find

> >> > many
> >> > graves under the floor of the nave.  These graves are generally
marked 
> >> > by
> >> > a
> >> > carved inscription in the relevant slab.  There may also be a
memorial
> >> > plaque
> >> > on the wall but the latter doesn't necessarily refer to a grave in
the
> >> > church
> >> > or even in the adjacent  cemetary.
> >> >
> >> > Which memorial were you talking about?
> >>
> >> The ficticious(?) McPuppet one you brought up.
> >
> > I meant the original one you referred to in Westmister Abbey.
> 
> I don't recall any specific burial locations in Westminster Abbey, so I 
> wouldn't have been referring to any one in particular.  I do recall
seeing 
> wall plaques and (thanks to the image posted in this thread) floor
carvings
> inside.  I presumed that the plaques memorialized someone interred
nearby--
> in a vault or even under the floor.  Assuming the stone floor carvings
were
> placed above where someone was buried, it indicates to me that it was 
> expected that people would be walking over this area as long as the
church 
> stood.  No disrespect involved.

Which is where we came in I think.

> 
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > > which were located beneath where people are expected to 
> >> >> >> >> > > walk.
> >> >> >> >> > > I
> >> >> >> >> > > believe that outdoor cemeteries were what were being 
> >> >> >> >> > > referred
> >> >> >> >> > > to
> >> >> >> >> > > here.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > I can't see a difference between a grave inside a church
and 
> >> >> >> >> > one
> >> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> >> > an
> >> >> >> >> > outdoor cemetary.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I guess that explains it in your case then.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Explains what?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That you see no difference between the two.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That's a circular arguement if ever I saw one.  What are you
> > > > > > talking about?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Circular, perhaps.  Do you see a difference between a crypt in a
> > > > > mausoleum or church and a slate stone marker in a grassy
cemetery?
> > > > 
> > > > No, they are all someone's grave and are all equally deserving of 
> > > > respect.
> > > > 
> > > > > I do.  In a  well-maintained cemetery, to purposely walk across
a 
> > > > > marked grave site, just  because you can, would be considered
> > > > > disrespectful  by many people.
> > > > 
> > > > I suspect those who are offended are those who want to be
offended. 
> > > > If you visit one of the many war grave sites in Europe, both
British 
> > > > Commonwealth and American[1], you will see rows of tombstones
about 6
> > > > feet apart.  If you walk between the rows to find a particular
> > > > tombstone you will,  perforce, be walking on the actual graves the
> > > > stones are marking.  I've yet to find anyone who finds this
> > > > disrespectful.
> > > 
> > > So you condemn the motives of all those who would be offended based
on 
> > > your suspicions?
> > 
> > Where did I say I condemned anyone for anything?
> 
> "I suspect those who are offended are those who want to be offended."  
You 
> dismissed their motives for taking offense base on your own suspicions. 
> Maybe "condemned" was too strong.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > If there is no option except to walk upon graves in a crowded
cemetery,
> > > especially a military one, I'm sure there's no disrespect involved. 
> > > Most of  the larger cemeteries around here have clear walking paths
to
> > > follow that  presumably avoid graves.  There would be no reason to
> > > leave the  path and  walk over a grave, unless you are visiting or
> > > inspecting a specific grave  site.  I have seen custodians admonish
> > > people who were simply strolling  across the graves, so I guess
enough
> > > people had made it know they consider  it disrespectful.
> > 
> > 
> > More likely they don't want you to walk on the grass.
> 
> Hardly.

Why do you say that?  People walking on grass can cause a lot of damage.

> 
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > > Inside a  church, you could walk just about anywhere the layout 
> >> > > guides
> >> > > you without  being disrespectful, regardless of whether there are
> >> > > people interred there or not.
> >> >
> >> > How so?
> >>
> >> What exactly do you need clarified or explained?
> >>
> >
> > The idea that it is disrespectful to walk on graves in the open air
but 
> > not
> > indoors.
> 
> When people are intentionally buried in a church beneath an aisle or 
> walkway, the fact that people willy be walking over that site was
obviously
> considered okay, or the dead would have been located somewhere else.  
When
> people are buried in the ground in a cemetery and marked by a headstone,
it
> is typically considered respectful to avoid walking over the burial
place 
> unless attending the site.  Many cemeteries large enough to have a
printed 
> brochure will ask for this courtesy in print, so walking on marked
cemetery
> graves-- while not against any law-- is considered disrespectful by
enough 
> people to have it mentioned.
> 

Do these brochures actually say that it is disrespectful or do they merely
ask you not to walk on the grass?

-- 
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy>