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!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm too lazy to have a bigger ego. - James May, RT 2016/1/23-29

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:39:55 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> 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.

On 20/10/2023 16:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> 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.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Maybe no stone was erected until he died.

In message <qr85ji511taoubol1bo8cetm4nn4cvjmsf@4ax.com> at Fri, 20 Oct
2023 17:10:55, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> writes
>On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:39:55 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>>DIED MAY 27TH 1936
>>AGED 86 YEARS.
>>ALSO HIS WIFE
>>SARAH CURTIS
>>DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
[]
>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.
>
>-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.
>
>-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.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

one can't go from `supposed crackpot ideas have been right before' to `we
should
take this latest crackpot idea onboard without making it fight for acceptance
like all the previous ones'. - Richard Caley, 2002 February 11 00:02:28

In message <PbCdnRILGekVKK_4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Fri,
20 Oct 2023 18:14:48, Ian Goddard <ian_ng@austonley.org.uk> writes
>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.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

one can't go from `supposed crackpot ideas have been right before' to `we should
take this latest crackpot idea onboard without making it fight for acceptance
like all the previous ones'. - Richard Caley, 2002 February 11 00:02:28

In message <ugu9en$16erk$2@dont-email.me> at Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:21:43,
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
>On 20/10/2023 16:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>> DIED MAY 27TH 1936
>> AGED 86 YEARS.
>> ALSO HIS WIFE
>> SARAH CURTIS
>> DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
[]
>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.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

one can't go from `supposed crackpot ideas have been right before' to `we should
take this latest crackpot idea onboard without making it fight for acceptance
like all the previous ones'. - Richard Caley, 2002 February 11 00:02:28

On 20/10/2023 17:21, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 20/10/2023 16:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>  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.

--
Colin Bignell

In message <4aydnTGp6qDefK_4nZ2dnZeNn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> at Fri, 20
Oct 2023 21:21:40, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> writes
>On 20/10/2023 17:21, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 20/10/2023 16:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>>> DIED MAY 27TH 1936
[]
>>> SARAH CURTIS
>>> DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
[]
>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).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Lucy Worsley takes tea in Jane Austen's Regency Bath. - TV "Choices" listing,
RT 2017-5-27

On 21/10/2023 10:51, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Lucy Worsley takes tea in Jane Austen's Regency Bath

Cold shower, quick!
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 10:51:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <4aydnTGp6qDefK_4nZ2dnZeNn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> at Fri, 20
>Oct 2023 21:21:40, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> writes
>>On 20/10/2023 17:21, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 20/10/2023 16:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>[]
>>>> DIED MAY 27TH 1936
>[]
>>>> SARAH CURTIS
>>>> DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
>[]
>>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.

In message <4fg8jipomssj753uo62opush6l6k3la34b@4ax.com> at Sat, 21 Oct
2023 22:35:18, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> writes
>On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 10:51:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <4aydnTGp6qDefK_4nZ2dnZeNn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> at Fri, 20
>>Oct 2023 21:21:40, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> writes
>>>On 20/10/2023 17:21, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> On 20/10/2023 16:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>[]
>>>>> DIED MAY 27TH 1936
>>[]
>>>>> SARAH CURTIS
>>>>> DIED JAN 13xx 1923 [or 5]
>>[]
>>>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.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of
Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in
Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.

In message <uh09s2$1n40i$3@dont-email.me> at Sat, 21 Oct 2023 11:41:06,
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
>On 21/10/2023 10:51, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> 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).

>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).]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of
Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in
Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.

On 21/10/2023 22:52, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <uh09s2$1n40i$3@dont-email.me> at Sat, 21 Oct 2023 11:41:06,
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
>> On 21/10/2023 10:51, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> 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).
>
>> 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!

>
> 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.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.