Cemetary Ettiquette

[This Girl]

If 2 out of 3 siblings have cut the 3rd one off, and the first 2 have no desire to be cremated and buried in the same plot as their mother and grandmother, and the 3rd child wants to be there, is there anything wrong with the 3rd child putting a marker there for the 3rd child & spouse for when they die, esp. if the 3rd child & spouse were the ones who were the main helpers to the mom? Also, this is all OK with the cemetery board. The plot is on township property and is surrounded by relatives' land, and it is OK with the relatives, too. The estranged siblings are mad and say that the plot is "ruined" and that they can never visit the grave again. Do you think they are out of line, or that the 3rd child & spouse shouldn't have their marker and and ashes there because of the wishes of the other 2 siblings even though they have been cruel to the 3rd one?

[This Girl]

Yes, US--this cemetery is unusual for the US because in this case, the plots aren't actually purchased--it is a small coutry cemetery owned by the Township, and the township cemetery board makes their own rules, which are that you place a marker and the spot is yours. The grandmother is a full burial in this plot--her daughter (the "mom") is cremated with urn buried on top of the grandmother's vault, with a flat marker behind the grandmother's marker, and the "3rd child" 's & spouse's marker (both on one marker) is a 3rd flat marker placed behind the mom's. So as you face the gravesite, the grandmother's marker is first, the mom's is in the middle, and the child & spouse's marker is 3rd in the row--all 3 on one plot. The grandfather's marker lies to the side the grandmother's--and nearby are other relatives' plots/markers--there is lots of space nearby for the first two siblings and descendents, one area had previously been chosen by one of the siblings because she wanted an area for her spouse, children, grandchildren, for full burials--no cremation, and therefore, did not want to be in the same plot as the mom and grandmother. So no issue about the first two diblings wanting the same "spot'--they just don't want the 3rd sibling there. Compicated-huh?

[Beanmistriss]

I have no idea about the legalities of the situation but they all need to grow up a wee bit surely. "plot is ruined" my a*se. What is wrong with people?!

[Nosy Rosy]

I have to agree with beanmistriss....a bit of 'common' should be applied here...folk spend their lives 'people pleasing'..this shouldn't be extended to wherever we end up next....(if there is a wherever).....don't stress yourself....deal with the things you have control over..don't waste your energy on things you have no control over!

[dot.hawkes]

Blimey, is this how it is done statesside? What a palaver

[This Girl]

I sure appreciate all of your answers and opinions. No, this is very uncommon for the US, I guess. A lawyer I talked to who has practiced law for 59 years said this is a new one on him because generally an individual purchases a plot and it would depend on whatever guidelines were set down by the owner of the plot. Also, many municipalities don't allow that many persons' remains in one plot. However, this township is GLAD to do it this way as it is a small cemetery, 100 yrs. old, but eventually one day will be full, so any way they don't have to use up a new plot is a good thing, in their view. So with all these opinions, plus others, it seems the consensus is that the two estranged siblings are out of line. That's what I thought. Thank you all again.

[jno]

it seems child 3 has complied with the law and local practice and emotional affection too. As has been said, if the other two are too outraged ever to visit the grave again, that is their decision and their loss. And pretty silly behaviour, it seems to me.