- Jul 3, 2011
- 443
- 121
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
My grandparents had two children who both got married and stayed married until death. If you count up the number of people that include the grandparents, their two kids, and their kid's spouses, you have 6 people.
The grandparents bought 6 cemetery plots many years ago, after their kids were married. When asked why they bought so many plots when there are only two of them, the answer was, "for whoever needs them." Though they never admitted to it, it is believed by some family members that their intent was that they hoped their two kids and their spouses would want to be buried alongside them - six people, six cemetery plots.
Fast forward years later, it turns out that none of the four relatives (their two kids and spouses) were buried in those plots. Plots can be bought and sold via the newspaper, craigslist, etc. The bottom line right now is that the two grandparents are lying there dead by themselves, with two plots still available and under control of just one surviving relative, (an unmarried, childless, grandchild) who preferably would like to use one of the two for themselves to be buried in, alongside their grandparents, then either sell the other or leave it via will to someone else as an asset they could use or sell. But it's a hassle to sell one. There's paperwork to prove who now owns it, and of course, a hefty fee that goes to the cemetery just for handling the paperwork to transfer the name. The situation is complicated by the fact that the grandchild may move out of state, die out of state, and being buried alongside their grandparents would then entail coordinating by the funeral home and untold expensive transportation costs, paid to whoever ships dead bodies across the country. (I'm afraid to even ask how much that would cost.)
If YOU were the last surviving relative that had the option to be buried in the immediate vicinity of the original grandparents, and you didn't want to be cremated, would you have an increased desire to be buried there due to the fact that no one else in the family chose to, and if you don't do it, they lay there 'alone' with no other relatives nearby like they had apparently originally hoped? Or do you believe that since they're dead, they'll never know who was or wasn't buried near them, and somehow showing respect to their memory by just one, rather than 4 relatives being buried near them is pointless, if not downright nutty?
I knew a man who thought it was crazy to put flowers on a grave. He didn't say why, but I presume he thought it was pointless since the deceased never knows you did it, and/or graves don't need to be beautified. I've even heard that you should never walk across a grave out of respect, which would require paying attention to the direction of the tombstones or markers and walking between them rather than just strutting across the cemetery any way you want. If these issues are signs of respect to dead people, why wouldn't being buried near them be also?
And where do you draw the line as to how much you're willing to hassle with making sure that happens? i.e. long-distance issues if you're nowhere near that state when you die?
Assume that no 'life change' takes place, such as the grandchild gets married and now wants to be buried with their own spouse somewhere else anyway.
I hate even THINKING about stuff like this. It's depressing mind clutter, but smart people have their ducks lined up so as to reduce burdens left on others when they die. You need to make your wishes known. What would you think about the situation and do? Would being buried with relatives who thought enough of their family to buy 6 plots way in advance even matter, knowing that 'if you don't do it, no one else will?' Do you think the grandparents have been disrespected by other family members who have chosen, for whatever reason, to be buried someplace else within the same city?
The grandparents bought 6 cemetery plots many years ago, after their kids were married. When asked why they bought so many plots when there are only two of them, the answer was, "for whoever needs them." Though they never admitted to it, it is believed by some family members that their intent was that they hoped their two kids and their spouses would want to be buried alongside them - six people, six cemetery plots.
Fast forward years later, it turns out that none of the four relatives (their two kids and spouses) were buried in those plots. Plots can be bought and sold via the newspaper, craigslist, etc. The bottom line right now is that the two grandparents are lying there dead by themselves, with two plots still available and under control of just one surviving relative, (an unmarried, childless, grandchild) who preferably would like to use one of the two for themselves to be buried in, alongside their grandparents, then either sell the other or leave it via will to someone else as an asset they could use or sell. But it's a hassle to sell one. There's paperwork to prove who now owns it, and of course, a hefty fee that goes to the cemetery just for handling the paperwork to transfer the name. The situation is complicated by the fact that the grandchild may move out of state, die out of state, and being buried alongside their grandparents would then entail coordinating by the funeral home and untold expensive transportation costs, paid to whoever ships dead bodies across the country. (I'm afraid to even ask how much that would cost.)
If YOU were the last surviving relative that had the option to be buried in the immediate vicinity of the original grandparents, and you didn't want to be cremated, would you have an increased desire to be buried there due to the fact that no one else in the family chose to, and if you don't do it, they lay there 'alone' with no other relatives nearby like they had apparently originally hoped? Or do you believe that since they're dead, they'll never know who was or wasn't buried near them, and somehow showing respect to their memory by just one, rather than 4 relatives being buried near them is pointless, if not downright nutty?
I knew a man who thought it was crazy to put flowers on a grave. He didn't say why, but I presume he thought it was pointless since the deceased never knows you did it, and/or graves don't need to be beautified. I've even heard that you should never walk across a grave out of respect, which would require paying attention to the direction of the tombstones or markers and walking between them rather than just strutting across the cemetery any way you want. If these issues are signs of respect to dead people, why wouldn't being buried near them be also?
And where do you draw the line as to how much you're willing to hassle with making sure that happens? i.e. long-distance issues if you're nowhere near that state when you die?
Assume that no 'life change' takes place, such as the grandchild gets married and now wants to be buried with their own spouse somewhere else anyway.
I hate even THINKING about stuff like this. It's depressing mind clutter, but smart people have their ducks lined up so as to reduce burdens left on others when they die. You need to make your wishes known. What would you think about the situation and do? Would being buried with relatives who thought enough of their family to buy 6 plots way in advance even matter, knowing that 'if you don't do it, no one else will?' Do you think the grandparents have been disrespected by other family members who have chosen, for whatever reason, to be buried someplace else within the same city?
Last edited:
