Mentioned on an MI - will she be buried there?

[Jomot]

Sorry if this is a really dumb question but the reason I ask is that I have a photograph of a headstone for someone who died in 1879.   His wife of 20-years remarried the following year and was married to her second husband, with whom she had another four children, until his death in 1902. 

However, she is named on the headstone of her first husband - even though she died 24 years later - so does this mean she would be buried there too?   One of their sons, who died in 1939, is also named, so the same question applies.

Thanks

[jess5athome]

Hi, I cannot give you an answer, but, I can tell you that I have a MI on my wife's side where the parents are buried together and recorded on the monument together with there son, however, the son was killed in action in 1914-1918 and his body was never recovered so his remains are not in the grave despite the fact he is recorded on the headstone.

Also I know of a lady who lost her second husband, (he was a widower when they married and she was a widow) and he is buried with his first wife.

Frank.

[mazi]

I think it depends on how the inscription is worded.
those I have seen often say  ------------ John smith-----------
                                          also his wife mary--------

if it just says  john smith  beloved husband of mary    then it is possible she is not buried there


mike

[Jomot]

It says In Affectionate Remembrance of (husband No 1) who died (date & age) also Jane, wife of the above who died (date & age).

It then goes on to give a few more also's including three children who died young (before their father), one who died aged 24 and then finally their son who died in 1939 aged 80.  They had 10 children in all but only 5 are mentioned.

[mazi]

I've really had to think about this  ,  I think this headstone was a new one put up when his wife died, or even much later if the 1939 inscription does not look to be a later addition, he is there, so is his wife, but no mention of husband no 2 or children of that union,so put up by her first family.

the question is  "in affectionate remembrance",   not "here lies"  or similar, it could just be a family memorial added to the fathers grave, replacing the original, maybe because mum was buried elsewhere by her second lot of children.

be interesting to see what others think.


added, did mum move away when she remarried or did she stay in the same town?      If she moved away there is a good possibility she is not buried there

mike

[groom]

the question is  "in affectionate remembrance",   not "here lies"  or similar, it could just be a family memorial added to the fathers grave, replacing the original, maybe because mum was buried elsewhere

That was my immediate thought as well, Mike.

The only way to be sure would be to contact the cemetery and see if they have records of who was buried in the grave.

[Jomot]

Hi Mike

I've just taken another look at it and it appears to me that the original inscription was for the husband and the children who pre-deceased him, with a gap left for Jane and her details added later.   I'll try & add it but may need to save in a lower resolution first.

To answer the added question, she stayed in the same village.

[mazi]

so the children who predeceased him     "lie here",   do any of the others?  I think this is a comparatively recent  poss 1939 memorial to the family, erected by the surviving children.

I do not think it dates from 1879, it is not aged enough.

there is a tiny inscription bottom right, I cannot read it but it may hold a clue to the date.

mike

[Jomot]

The inscription at the bottom is J H Watson, Bishop Auckland, so presumably the stonemason?