Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Kensal Green Cemetery: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
78.146.95.234 (talk)
{{WPLondon|class=|importance=low}}
NYScholar (talk | contribs)
m added a heading for early comments
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WPLondon|class=|importance=low}}
{{WPLondon|class=|importance=low}}

==Query and responses==
"Kensal Green is the oldest English cemetery still in operation"
"Kensal Green is the oldest English cemetery still in operation"



Revision as of 16:42, 19 June 2009

WikiProject iconLondon Unassessed Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Query and responses

"Kensal Green is the oldest English cemetery still in operation"

- can this really be right? I see that from the Friends' website (link on article page) it is the oldest of the 7 big out-of-town London cemeteries of the 1830s(ish) on - but is that the same thing? Does the above statement depend on a particular definition of "cemetery", which I am not understanding? Or what?? All discussion gratefully read! Nevilley 23:10 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

There is a cemetery at the bottom of my street around an 11th century church. There are graves in it from last year -- Tarquin 23:12 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
well yep I was thinking along those lines too. Unless the person who wrote that was using "cemetery" in a specific sense, i.e. not a churchyard? It sounds unlikely, but I thought I would wait for a response before editing. It will certainly be the oldest of the London 7 still in use (I did a gig there a few years ago!), maybe the oldest of that whole type, but if you use "cemetery" to mean "a place for burying dead people" (which I think is inter alia more or less what the wiki definitions says) then no, it can't possibly be right! :) Nevilley 23:15 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
PS we ought to get this right as it is clearly a grave matter. Nevilley 23:16 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
OK I've done it. Views anyone??? Nevilley 23:40 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

A gig...? Are you a vicar or a member of a goth rock band? -- Tarquin 23:23 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

Heheh. A trumpet player. Someone rang me out of the blue, her husband had died, he wanted a tpt at his funeral, would I go and play. I had to stand right at the front, a foot or two away from the coffin, and launch straight into some hairy scary Baroque piece having sat there freezing for ages. Was I nervous. :) Nevilley 12:51 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

Remove the list?

There is a category for those interrred at this cemetery. Should we just rely on that, and do away with the list of names? Noisy | Talk 18:25, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Photos

I have some more photos - will make a commons page soon. Light is not good at this time of year, but the gasometers are lovely. Justinc 00:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Baden Powell

BP is actually buried in Nyeri, Kenya. Chris 20:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris is right, he lived there in Nyeri from 1939-1941, died there, and is buried there. Rlevse 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

How are there 250,000 people in 65,000 graves? Are they stacked on top of each other, mostly cremated, or what? Rlevse 13:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are they stacking the caskets? One at 6 feet down, another at 3 or 4 feet down, etc? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pretty much. Burial law is complex, but in general the plot owner can place several bodies in one plot. Dig the first one deep, then lay the next on top... Recent changes to the law are likely to allow plots to be reused in this after a time Ephebi (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetery removals???

"It is the only such cemetery established by an act of the British Parliament with a mandate that its bodies may not be exhumed and cremated or the land sold for development." Is this kind of thing common? Its not very common here in the states. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • questions, questions! Its very rare here as well - proposals to the close a churchyard or disturb consecrated ground would have to go to a special hearing here, called a Consistory Court. Ephebi (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So moving the cemetery (digging everything up, both costly and ghoulish) basically out of the question? And its basically closed to everything but ash-related internments/scatterings? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a few decades ago it might have been possible, as there was rather less respect for historical items. nowadays, while technically not impossible, practically its not feasible if the land has been dedicated in some way as a burial space. Thus the land used by official churchyards and the Magnificent Seven cemeteries are quite literally sacrosanct. There have been instances where ancient unmarked burial areas have been unearthed and cleared to make way way for development if, say, a Roman site or medieval hospital burial ground gets accidentally discovered during the building of a city office block, but this would still require the correct legal process to be gone through. It is interesting to compare approaches across the Atlantic; US archaeologists seem to have had free reign to dig up the burial grounds of the Jamestown Settlement and tourist attraction in Virginia, but when they requested a sample of DNA from the bones of a suspected relative of Captain Bignold who was buried in a UK church this was referred to the appropriate Archbishop's Court. After a long deliberation they agreed to disturb the burials in the vault, but even after four centuries this was controversial and ultimately false as nothing was proven.) Ephebi (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]