CWGC headstones and family plots

[depaor01]

Describing a real scenario here which must be a common occurrence and may be useful in my research on a local man whom Museumtom identifies as a possible non-comm...

A serviceman died at home, was buried at his family's expense and later again his parents were interred in the same plot.

Later, that soldier is passed for inclusion for commemoration and is deemed eligible for a CWGC headstone. 

How is this dealt with in these scenarios:

1. The family grave is unmarked, but parents are also interred.

2. There is a family headstone in place naming 3 burials including the serviceman but his service is not mentioned. 

Thanks,

Dave

 

[rolt968]

To answer the second point first. CWGC will list the burial as a war grave but will leave the original memorial. You might like to look at the grave of W J L Wilson about half way down this thread:

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/227791-new-cwgc-commemorations-130515/#comment-2311361

To point one. They will put a CWGC headstone to the man. If they cannot be sure exactly where he is buried they will put up a stone which indicates that he is buried in the churchyard.

The former point (an existing headstone) is why you sometimes find graveyards with the CWGC notice saying that there are war graves, but there are no CWGC headstones. (Edzell Churchyard where WJL Wilson is buried is a case in point.

RM

[depaor01]

16 minutes ago, rolt968 said:

To answer the second point first. CWGC will list the burial as a war grave but will leave the original memorial. You might like to look at the grave of W J L Wilson about half way down this thread:

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/227791-new-cwgc-commemorations-130515/#comment-2311361

To point one. They will put a CWGC headstone to the man. If they cannot be sure exactly where he is buried they will put up a stone which indicates that he is buried in the churchyard.

The former point (an existing headstone) is why you sometimes find graveyards with the CWGC notice saying that there are war graves, but there are no CWGC headstones. (Edzell Churchyard where WJL Wilson is buried is a case in point.

RM

So really if there are other interments in the plot, the CWGC will only record it as a war grave, with no military headstone placed, regardless of whether the plot is marked or not...?

[jay dubaya]

If his name is recorded on a family headstone, then yes, the CWGC will add his name to the database as a war grave should he meet the criteria for inclusion, but the Commission will not place headstone on the grave as it already has one.

[depaor01]

100% answered. 

Many thanks. 

Dave

[PRC]

My understanding, and happy to be corrected on this, is that if it's family plot in the UK then it will usually have been leased for 100-150 years.

If the CWGC want to place something on the plot they will need the agreement of the leaseholder.

Hopefully in the aftermath of WW1 & WW2 most of the agreements were put in place. In the case of graves where a service person was already listed on a family headstone this was usually precautionary. When that family memorial becomes damaged or deterioates and the leaseholder has already given permission then the CWGC can get on with erecting one of their headstones. Note this will list only the service person unless payment has been made to add the other names - the few I've seen have always had the additional names on the back. It's the CWGC's job to ensure the service persons sacrifice is remembered in perpetuity, so they have to cater for the eventuality that existing memorials will wear out.

Of course there may be circumstances in which the leaseholder refused that permission. If the persons inheriting the rights of the leaseholder also refuses permission and the memorial becomes illegible through wear and tear, then the only option for the CWGC may be to erect a headstone with "known to be buried in this cemetery" elsewhere in the cemetery and leave it there until the lease expires, (and hopefully from their perspective isn't renewed).

Of course this causes problems and delays when a non-commemoration case is accepted and the burial place known as there is a need to identify who inherited the legal rights to the leasehold on the plot.

It's also possible to find family plots which mention the service person and the name is still legible and yet there is a separate CWGC headstone. This presumably was something the leaseholder had requested - i.e. that it was put in place after a certain period of time or in the event of their own death. Or it may simply have been what they requested from the outset.

So my answer to questions one and two are both "what has the leaseholder given them permission to do" - the existence of an existing memorial, unless it covers the entire plot, isn't a factor.

Cheers,
Peter

[squirrel]

This assumes that the lease on the grave has been taken on by another member of the family. Unfortunately, this is not always so and leases have lapsed with no record of the current owner.

Edited 16 July , 2022 by squirrel

[PRC]

2 hours ago, squirrel said:

Unfortunately, this is not always so and leases have lapsed with no record of the current owner.

Legally my understanding under UK property and contract law is that they won't have lapsed as title would then revert back to the cemetery \ council \ parish that actually own the burial ground, which would make the work of the CWGC much simpler. What is likely to happen instead is a legal quagmire about who the ownership of the lease passed onto, which it may be simpler, (i.e least cost), to resolve by allowing the passage of time until the lease naturally expires. Given that we are over a 100 years past the Great War this may be in effect what is starting to happen.

(Other and better qualified legal opinions will be available, and there may be very specific rules that apply to burial plots )

Cheers,
Peter

[depaor01]

Quick update on this is that the grave's location was identified to me in the council's burial records. I visited the site today and there's no headstone for him or his parents. I'll get hold of the caretaker to firm up the facts.

[depaor01]

Here's the man:

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/186500-i-need-your-help-again-lads-and-lassies/?do=findComment&comment=3132265

[PRC]

So he's an In from the Cold Project case whild hasn't got as far as the Army and CWGC agreeing that he is officially one of the Great War Dead. All thats been agreed so far is that there is a case to investigate.

If he is accepted then initially he will be recorded in a Book of Remembrance while CWGC then investigate where he is buried, whether there is already an approriate headstone and who currently is legally responsible for the plot.

If the place of burial can be found and it's unmarked, or the exisiting memorial is effectively illegible, they will try to liase with the plot lessor \ owner to put in place an appropriate CWGC style headstone. They will also look to take over maintenance and accessibility.

If it is an unmarked mark grave there is always the possibility that he is buried in a common or paupers grave - i.e. one that is shared by mutiple unrelated individuals. Those are normally owned by the council \ parish in the UK - can't speak for the situation in the Irish Republic but at the time of his death I suspect paupers grave followed the system in the rest of the British Isles.

Cheers,
Peter

[depaor01]

11 minutes ago, PRC said:

So he's an In from the Cold Project case whild hasn't got as far as the Army and CWGC agreeing that he is officially one of the Great War Dead. All thats been agreed so far is that there is a case to investigate.

If he is accepted then initially he will be recorded in a Book of Remembrance while CWGC then investigate where he is buried, whether there is already an approriate headstone and who currently is legally responsible for the plot.

If the place of burial can be found and it's unmarked, or the exisiting memorial is effectively illegible, they will try to liase with the plot lessor \ owner to put in place an appropriate CWGC style headstone. They will also look to take over maintenance and accessibility.

If it is an unmarked mark grave there is always the possibility that he is buried in a common or paupers grave - i.e. one that is shared by mutiple unrelated individuals. Those are normally owned by the council \ parish in the UK - can't speak for the situation in the Irish Republic but at the time of his death I suspect paupers grave followed the system in the rest of the British Isles.

Cheers,
Peter

Thanks Peter,

He's buried with his parents in the same plot. That's officially recorded. He was buried first. 

As I understand it from what's gone before, it seems possible that if eligibility is confirmed,  he could get a CWGC headstone with his parents recorded on the rear...?

Would be good to get some photo confirmation of existing examples of this practice.

His records include a handwritten letter from his father asking the authorities if he can keep the SWB (which of course they were entitled to) as the family had to fund the burial of their son themselves. It appears to explain the lack of a headstone. 

A sad case.

 

[PRC]

4 minutes ago, depaor01 said:

he could get a CWGC headstone with his parents recorded on the rear...?

He would only get that if the owner\lessor of the grave was prepared to pay for it. As well as the graves that are related to the World Wars, the CWGC also take on grave maintenance at the request of other organisations and individuals. However that is a strictly commercial arrangment. A CWGC style headstone is used but with scalloped or notched cut-outs.

 

For the above headstone CWGC have confirmed that he was a civilian at the time he died and that they maintain it, but it does not qualify for War Grave status.

These aren't the sorts of headstones styles to be used in your particular case, they are just examples of other commercial contracts that the CWGC have entered into. However I would suspect that taking out a contract with them to add his parents names everytime the headstone is replaced would be exorbitantly expensive.

Cheers,
Peter

 

[depaor01]

Complex! But understandable given the massive admin that must be involved in the maintenance of so many graves.

Thanks for the clarification. 

Dave

[squirrel]

20 hours ago, PRC said:

Legally my understanding under UK property and contract law is that they won't have lapsed as title would then revert back to the cemetery \ council \ parish that actually own the burial ground, which would make the work of the CWGC much simpler. What is likely to happen instead is a legal quagmire about who the ownership of the lease passed onto, which it may be simpler, (i.e least cost), to resolve by allowing the passage of time until the lease naturally expires. Given that we are over a 100 years past the Great War this may be in effect what is starting to happen.

(Other and better qualified legal opinions will be available, and there may be very specific rules that apply to burial plots )

Cheers,
Peter

I was a funeral director for a number of years  and regularly dealt with graves that had no owners, leases do lapse where the cemetery owners contact the last kown owner and, if there is no response, there is little that they can do as they have no permission or legal obligation as regerads maintenance. Nothing is done to the grave until such time as the ownwership reverts to the cemtery owners unless a memorial is in unsafe condition.

[PRC]

1 hour ago, squirrel said:

I was a funeral director for a number of years  and regularly dealt with graves that had no owners, leases do lapse where the cemetery owners contact the last kown owner and, if there is no response, there is little that they can do as they have no permission or legal obligation as regerads maintenance. Nothing is done to the grave until such time as the ownwership reverts to the cemtery owners unless a memorial is in unsafe condition.

By definition it has not lapsed if ownership does not revert so that routine maintenance and upkeep becomes the cemetery owners responsibility. Those are rights and responsibilities under the lease contract. The lessor would have to insert a clause in the contract that if the lessee doesn't not keep the lessor advised of change of contact details or beneficial ownership of the lease then the title to the plot would revert to the lessor. However the UK courts may well regard it as an unreasonable contract term, there would probably be no counterparty until you can prove whether the lessee is alive or dead, there would be a high bar to end the lessee's quiet possession and for the sums and item involved the lessor probably wouldn't bother going to court to uphold their contractual rights unless there was significant financial gain in doing so. How other countries courts might view it would be down to local custom and practice. But I'm looking at it with my paralegal generic contract and property law hat on, one I've not worn for over 7 years, and strangely enough grave plot ownership never came up. I'm even wondering if it might be treated more like a leased car (chattels) rather than a leased house (property).

In the event that a memorial becomes unsafe the cemetery owners have other legal obligations to step in and take necessary remedial measures but it's a certainty that the lease agreement gives them the right to recharge the lessee the reasonable costs incurred. Of course the most likely scenario is that the owner has lost track of the lessee and ends up having to write the costs off.

So I think we are actually looking at it and coming to the same conclusion - the reality on the ground is that the plot "owner" (actually the lessee) is out of the picture and responsibility for decision making with regard to what can happen to the plot is unclear until the lease ends.

Cheers,
Peter