Send pictures to us
Send us your pictures and video by text, email or by uploading. Click here to find out how. »
|
|
|
|
Buffy star fights chapel plan to build over graves
10:36am Monday 14th July 2008
Comments (13)
ONE of Britain's bestknown actors is opposing plans to build a £110,000 chapel over graves in a Hampshire churchyard.
Anthony Head visited St John the Baptist Church, Burley, on Saturday to attend a consistory court, which will decide if the scheme should be approved.
One of the five graves affected is that of his grandmother, Peggy Head.
She was killed in Ireland in 1922 when her husband's motorcycle and sidecar crashed into a tree that had been placed across the road by Sinn Fein, who were attacking a nearby police station.
Anthony, 54, has appeared in Little Britain, Doctor Who and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, plus a long-running series of Nescafe Gold Blend commercials.
He was accompanied by his father Seafield - Peggy's son - and his mother, veteran actress Helen Shingler, who appeared in the original Maigret series.
They viewed the grave and inspected a black and yellow tape outlining the position of the proposed chapel.
Anthony said: "Part of our objection is that the chapel bisects the grave. I have no problem with progress but not at the expense of graves."
The scheme was defended by the priest-in-charge, Canon Diane Webster, who was the first person to give evidence at the hearing.
She said the church needed to improve its accommodation and provide an area where small groups of people could engage in what she described as informal worship.
She added: "Styles of worship have changed and the type of accommodation needed has also changed.
"On one occasion a young man came in and wanted to light a candle in memory of his grandmother, who had died.He had to do it in full view of other people."
Jeanne Wilde, representing the objectors, criticised plans to build over graves.
Canon Webster replied: "It's something we would very much prefer not to have to do. We certainly regret it, but there are a lot of misunderstandings about graves. They hold human remains but not the essence of the person themselves."
Asked about the option of making more use of the church room she said: "It doesn't have the ambience - it's not a spiritual place."
The court was chaired by Mark Ruffell, Deputy Chancellor of the Diocese of Winchester, who will not give his verdict for several weeks.
Your Say YourDaily Echo
Curious, says...
11:14am Mon 14 Jul 08
I mean lighting a candle in full view of others. What's that all about?
GL, says...
11:31am Mon 14 Jul 08
Any grave is simply a depository for human remains - the soul having entered another spiritual dimension. The deceased person is not there, but continues to live elsewhere including in the memory of those they knew.
Several centuries ago it was also common place for graves to be cleared periodically, the bones being placed in a charnel house and the ground being used for new burials. Society was more open/less sensitive to the issues surrounding death and burial.
But I also recognise that a grave can be a source of comfort to those who remain, as well as a useful historical site that can allow subsequent generations to connect with their family past.
The church needs to show respect to near relatives of the deceased, and you can't get much nearer than a son and grandson as described in this story.
As for lighting a candle in public ... I don't get this at all. Most churches have candles for lighting in full public view and, personally, if I wish to light a memory candle in private I do this within the privacy of my own home.
Jenny, US says...
7:53pm Mon 14 Jul 08
Sheitma Pance, Soton says...
9:16pm Mon 14 Jul 08
If Buffy fans want to support Anthony, they could do a lot worse than email the Daily Echo's letters page.
The email address can be found elsewhere on this site under 'Contacts', on the left hand side.
If enough people oppose the desecration of these graves and write to the Echo, I'm sure the church will listen.
Becky M., WI, USA says...
9:26pm Mon 14 Jul 08
Yes, they can do this anywhere, and some might not understand, but no one has the right to tell someone else that their style of worship is incorrect.
I've lost three grandparents and an uncle since 1999; my uncle passed in 2005. Even though I don't visit their graves, I know I'd be very offended if someone were to say "Sorry, but your loved ones aren't as important as progress."
Anyone want to tell the families and friends of veterans that the markers of their loved ones aren't important? Anyone want to tell someone trying to research their family history that the headstones were removed and the graves covered over "Too bad"? We bury our dead and mark their final resting place for a number of reasons, but not one of them is unimportant to those doing the interring.
Progress at the cost of history is wrong.
Elizabeth, says...
9:33pm Mon 14 Jul 08
"...but there are a lot of misunderstandings about graves. They hold human remains but not the essence of the person themselves."
All I can say that the canon shows a fundamental misunderstanding of *why * this is a problem for some people.
Asked about the option of making more use of the church room she said: "It doesn't have the ambience - it's not a spiritual place."
And again... getting the right ambiance is more important than taking into account the wishes of the relatives of the deceased? I sincerely hope Canon Webster is not the one sent out on condolence calls to bereaved parishioners!
Gabriel, says...
10:23pm Mon 14 Jul 08
Tara, USA says...
1:07am Tue 15 Jul 08
This makes a recent local case come to light. A developer found a small family plot in the middle of his planned development and filed for permission to have the graves relocated at his expense. The law allows "abandoned" cemetaries to be relocated but even though no family members came forth the request was denied. The graves are now fenced in and will not be disturbed.
Elaine, US says...
1:17am Tue 15 Jul 08
Hare, Soton says...
6:04am Tue 15 Jul 08
Bekkah, Melbourne, Australia says...
10:05am Tue 15 Jul 08
I wonder what Canon Webster would have to say about it if it were HER beloved family member they were planning to build on top of.
And as for Gabriel's comment, I think that is in very poor taste. Whether the person has been dead 90 years or not is besides the point.
Here we have Canon Webster saying times they are a-changing, and that we should move on and provide for others who worship differently. But in the next breath, she's telling people who come to find solace by visiting those they've lost, to basically deal with it? Not on.
If she's that worried about it all, why not update the already existing church? Why not renovate? surely it would be easier and less of a hassle then disrupting the peace of former parishners who fully deserve it?
Ruth, UK says...
5:59pm Tue 15 Jul 08
In answer the "can the remains be moved" comment: if memory serves, the whole burial ground would have to be officially "disused" first, and that clearly isn't the case here.
Actor Anthony Head with his parents at the grave of Anthony's grandmother Peggy.
In this section
- Binmen to spy on your rubbish
- Give us a vote on fluoride
- Police will target yobs
- The cheapest place to live in the South
- Taxi driver fighting for his life after road smash
- Volunteers wanted to trial swine flu vaccine
- Fire wrecks Hampshire gym
- More charges over Arcadia drugs
- School is flying the green flag
- Legal challenge to travellers camp
Sponsored Links
|
|
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
SJ, Woolston says...
11:13am Mon 14 Jul 08