rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - Robert Jones article in the Sunday Mirror

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:32 am

There was an article in the Sunday Mirror about Private Robert Jones VC and that a modern day SAS hero Pete Winner is trying to ensure that Private Jones� grave faces St. Peter�s Church in Herefordshire (as Jones committed suicide he was first not allowed to be buried inside the church ground). But the authorities agreed a compromise, Jones could be buried inside the grounds but facing away from the church.

Pete Winner is fighting for this to be changed!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/04/25/sas-hero-s-battle-for-hero-of-rorke-s-drift-115875-22210350/

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:16 pm

What on earth has this got to do with him (mr Winner that is)?

Being more practical would making this change, supposing any descendents and the church authorities agree, increase or reduce the weathering effects on the stone itself?

G

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:12 pm

This is a topic which has come up before, and I would be interested in any contemporary documentation - particularly ecclesiastical documentation - which confirms that the burial place of Private Robert Jones was determined by the circumstances of his death. Personally, I have serious doubts, but am happy to be corrected.

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:19 pm

This story - will continue to run and run. There is no evidence that the circumstances surrounding Robert Jones's death had any influence on his burial. On a more practical point, the headstone can be viewed from standing on the pathway running through the churchyard.

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:00 am

It should be noted that in the 19th century everybody who was not an Anglican was buried in so-called unconsecrated ground. For example, the Rev'd Ellis Evans of Llandrillo, a Methodist minister and father of 1933 Pte Ellis Evans, 2/4th Regt., was buried - along with the rest of his congregation - outside church ground in an 'unconsecrated' area. Again, while I am happy to be corrected, I know of no other examples of graves 'facing away' from a church as a sign of stigma.

If memory serves, Robert Jones was recorded as having taken his own life "while of unsound mind". This was a phrase which occurs frequently on death certificates of the period, and was evidently employed as a way of alleviating the distress of the surviving family. As Martin says, there is no evidence that the circumstances surrounding Robert Jones's death had any influence on his burial.

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:47 am

Paul

I am of exactly the same view as you, and have made similar suggestions in previous posts on a thread about this topic. There is a persistent story - repeated everywhere, it seems - regarding the unconsecrated ground situation, the entry over the churchyard wall, and the direction the memorial faces, but I've never once seen a contemporary source referred to.

It appears the belief emanates entirely from family tradition, which I certainly wouldn't question on this thread, as (a) it may be accurate, if a little garbled over the years, which would be natural, and (b) because it is apparently a very sensitive topic for some, as at least one family member has demonstrated on this forum in the past.

As you correctly point out, the principle of consecrated ground is misunderstood by many, and often confused with sacred ground. At that time, those (usually rural) churchyards still open after the Burial Acts of the 1850s and certainly the municipal cemeteries which came in as a result, were divided into consecrated and unconsecrated ground - one area for C of E, the remainder for the rest. This was more difficult or sometimes slightly more convoluted in parish churchyards and occasionally led to unfortunate, well publicised disagreements between clergy and mourners. In South Wales, of all places, one would imagine that all churchyards, without exception, regularly accommodated considerable numbers of non-conformist interments simply because of the strong dissenting traditons of the "chapel."

With regard to the "over the churchyard wall" account, we must assume this is derived entirely from family tradition. It seems a strange thing to happen in the 1890s.

It is also often believed that all headstones face a certain way, and it is true that the grave itself is more likely to lie in an east/west direction, so any stone raised will also have an east and a west face. It is not the case that in churchyards all stones face the same way (I've studied enough churchyards to be sure of this!) but it seems in this case the Jones memorial is the only one to face in a certain direction. And it may well be that the family tradition for the reason it does so here is accurate. Without a strong family tradition going back some time, though, I would not usually go along with that as a reason. It is, however, perfectly true that a felo de se would often be buried in ground which was not sacred - outside the churchyard wall, for example. When this practice ceased I don't know, although I would think some time before suicide was no longer deemed a crime (which was in 1960 or '61 I believe).

Like you, I'd seek primary sources. The account of the funeral in a local newspaper would seem an obvious start, although this case may just be 10 or 20 years too early, going by the newspapers of the time. Still, I presume this task has been undertaken? I've checked The Times just in case (high profile deceased etc) but there is no mention of his passing, which is not surprising.

Otherwise, we're looking at correspondence or other papers in the parish collection held at the local Diocesan Record Office (or even, just possibly, still held by the parish); papers still in the family's possession; or correspondence or papers among the Archdeacon's archives, these again almost certainly held in the Diocesan RO, which may be in the county record office. I would guess (perhaps wrongly, if family tradition is strictly accurate) that any modern reluctance by the diocesan authorities to turn the memorial around was made on bureacratic grounds rather than because of any perceived wish to insist that a suicide must be buried in a certain way - if such a request has been made formally in modern times. If it has, then correspondence among the records of "faculty permissions" should certainly survive in either parish, archdeaconry or diocesan records.

The family obviously knows a lot more than we do of the intimate details of the case, but little of any contemporary evidence seems to lie in the public domain.

Peter

P.S. It has been suggested on this site in the past by a family member that Jones was murdered by his wife, as she remarried a younger man not long afterwards, but of course it was extremely common for widows to remarry shortly after bereavement, even as quickly as a few weeks or less in earlier times, and certainly within a year.

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:34 am

I was a bit guarded in my response in view of previous episodes - there are at least two branches of the Robert Jones family around. Pete Winner really needs to consult them at the first instance before taking action.

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:27 pm

Although it's not the case here (so my apologies for being slightly "off topic"), suicides were often buried in unmarked graves.

Another Victoria Cross Holder (Colour Sergeant John Byrne, VC, DCM, 68th Regiment of Foot) is buried in St Woolos Cemetery, Newport, not far from the graves of three of the defenders who survived. C/Sgt Byrne was awarded his VC in the Crimean War, and his DCM in the New Zealand War, and committed suicide in 1879.

His grave was "lost" for many years, until it was rediscovered in the 1980's. It's now marked by a stone paid for by the Durham Light Infantry, who were the successor regiment to the 68th. This was consecrated in a ceremony attended by the former Colonel of the regiment, Sir Peter de La Billiere.

Smile

[/i]

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 5:10 pm

I do not say this to contradict you but the personal or family circumsances of suicides might also have led to a grave being unmarked and possibly where impoverishment, estrangement or the simple inability to find surviving relatives was also a factor.

The marking of graves more often arose through having the financial wherewithal to do so or some local scheme of benevolence. It mattered a very great deal to soldiers in Victorian times that they might be assured of a proper funeral and grave memorial and many regiments went to considerable length to assure and ensure this happening. Which is much to thjeir credit today.

G

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm

Exactly so. In fact, when we refer to marked graves, do we mean marked by a normal headstone (or kerb etc) in the form of a specific memorial with inscription, or do we also include those very basic, small, metal grave markers bearing merely a plot or burial number, which used still to be common and are still present in some municipal cemeteries?

The reasons Galloglas correctly refers to for the frequent absence of a memorial were all common and perfectly routine. At the time of these deaths (second half of the 19th century) only a minority of graves were ever marked by a headstone. It was the norm in 1879 (Byrne) or 1898 (Jones) for graves to go entirely unmarked (other than sometimes a small numbered marker in post-1854 municipal cemeteries) as most families simply could not even begin to afford a stonemason's bill, the poor forming a large majority of the population. The Victorian stones we see today in our churchyards and cemeteries represent only a small minority of those actually buried there during that period, and in churchyards the 18th century stones represent an infinitesimally small percentage of the actual number buried there in that century. Only well into the 20th century did a majority of burials receive a stone (or kerb, tablet etc). In churchyards, of course, the same plots were used over and over again for reasons of space, and if one goes back far enough, clearances of entire churchyards of bones to free up space were the norm.

For an agricultural labourer's grave to be marked at all with a headstone in 1898 was very unusual.

Peter

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:03 am

Thank you for this; it's something that I didn't know, so I'm grateful for your advice.

It's true that John Byrne didn't have a family - at least, not one in Newport, anyway, as he had come to the town seeking work after leaving the Army.

I'm only guessing here, but the circumstances of him leaving may have had something to do with this. He was discharged dishonourably, and it's true that he certainly had a chequered career despite being a holder of the Victoria Cross.

Here's the Wikipedia entry - which is, of course, wrong in one major aspect, as he did in Newport (7 Crown Street, Maindee, to be exact).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byrne_(VC)

This is the Durham light Infantry entry on their web site, which is more accurate:

http://www.lightinfantry.me.uk/vcjohnbyrne.htm

Smile

Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:34 pm

Interesting. Firstly Peter if you re read the posting I made about my great grand fathers death entitled murder most foul title was tongue in cheek, I questioned him being shot twice in the head , something being put down to a hair tigger and the speed of my great grand mothers remarriage but I NEVER said she killed him. Nor did I point the finger at anyone else. Please re read then appologise . Thank you .
Secondly yes this is an emotive subject for my family. You see although grt grand dad Robert died in 1898, I knew his children including my nan . I knew most of his grand children , and he still has living grandchildren including my mum . We are not a topic we are a family.
When it comes to Mr. Pete Winner well what can I say . If he lives near St. Peters church then he would be aware that a branch of Robert jones family lives very close by , has he contacted them?? Also I am listed with the Victoria and George cross society has he contacted them to find us ......Well doesn't look like it.
It looks to me that a man with a cause has, for whatever reason,"connected" with Pvt Jones V.C. He's quite right about the ignorence of trauma that existed in the 19th century. However has he looked into the events leading up to Roberts death.
Apparently the prior day He had sold a sheep to a butcher for the same price
paid for as when purchased as a lamb . His wife was angry with him and showed him up by asking where the rest of the money was then marching into the village and demanding the butcher to pay a fair price or hand the beast back.This gave bad feeling between them . Robert had lost face , so to speak. The next day Elizabeth was at home when she apparntly had a "vision" of a soilders arm falling to the floor covered in blood , this a family story not official record btw. However she did not really know of the death until a maid from Dorstone House the home of the De la Hay family , came to get my great grand mother.
The inquest was held at a local pub one afternoon , as was the fashion back then , and apparently my Great grand mothers statement was not easy reading .
She remarried to a man named William Tillbury who was some years younger than her and went on to have two children by him. After my great grandmother died of a stroke, William remarried himself again to a woman named Elizabeth who was apparently younger than any of the step children . She was appently unpopular with williams natural and indeed step children.
When it comes to a family tradition of having gravestones the "wrong " way about well thats a new one on me. His Parents ( father robert born about 1822 mother named Hannah born about 1826) gravestones were not back to front . Also as I guess you all know Rob was one of 14 children the eldest being some 12 years older than him the youngest being born in 1879 !!!! yep his mum was 53 at the time !!! As you can see quite a few relatives still about lol

Some time ago a counsillor in that area also wanted to shift Roberts stone around but family contacted said why.
You see moving the stone around after 112 years you'd be disturbing the grave. Also what would it achieve???? After all it wouldn't overturn a 112 yr old suicide verdict would it? Such a thing would take tens of thousands of pounds and years to tackle. Do we the family want the hassel ?
As its been stated this is a family issue and all members of most close related to Rob jones should be contacted about this and I think you will find we want the man to rest in peace, please OK.

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:26 am

Phil

Thanks for coming on and providing this additional and interesting information from family sources. The incident with the sheep, leading to public embarrassment and a sense of shame for a breadwinner, is certainly the sort of episode, it seems to me, which might lead someone - in certain circumstances - to "flip", even though it would be difficult to pin anything down at this late stage.

Also interesting to see that you, and presumably family members you're in touch with, are not in favour of disturbing the grave in order to reposition the stone. For what it's worth, I think you're right. I've no doubt that this chap Winner will get nowhere if and when he discovers the family are not in favour of his aims. You'll appreciate, though (as you've experienced already in the past) that stories like this tend to reflect the fact that high profile historical figures will always attract strong interest from all sorts of people, even though to you and your family Robert Jones is much more than that. I don't suppose that will ever change.

Peter

P.S. Glad to learn that the Murder Most Foul post was apparently intended "tongue in cheek"!

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:09 am

oops just seen my typos above lol. Will try to see how to correct. Firstly I will clarify that my step great grandfathers second wife was also called Elizabeth as was my great grandmother . Yes , two Elizabeth Tilburys , very confusing lol. There were also children from this second union who are absolutly no relation to me or to Robert Jones nor my Great grand granny. aint family tree history complex lol lol.
The onlly reason I have not shared this info on here before is to keep it from the charletons who have historically logged into here and claimed to be members of my family . They are soon caught out. There is a great deal more I could post on here but will not for the above reason. Have to leave a few cards up you're sleeve lol.
I have a cousin who also comes in here and we aint that bad at fraud busting. Additionally my mother knows / knew all her aunts uncles & cousins and a quick call home solves things usually.
I can tell you however that the church records for that area are now in the archives of the local authority which I belive you may view by appointment. I found this out whilst trying to locate my great grandmother Elizabeths grave. However I failed to do so. As my great grandmother received a V.C widows pension until her death maybe the museum in Brecon could point me in the right direction as to the area where the pension was paid or sent to in her later life was it still to the family farm nr petercurch?
However to hopefully draw a line under this I will say this is a family matter. I appreciate that you may all have an active interest in this as do others & I respect this . However you must all apprciate this is a family matter . Thank you all for reading

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:22 am

Peter thank you for your sentiments . However I belive I requested an appology ...Ple give one sir.