In Memoriam: Reflections on Victorian Burial Practices and Calamities with Sam Perrin

Michelle: Hi everyone, and welcome back to Haunted History Chronicles. First of all, thank you for taking a listen to this episode. Before we begin, I just want to throw out few ways you can get involved and help support the show. We have a patreon page as well as an Amazon link, so hopefully if you'Re interested in supporting, you can find a way that best suits you. All of the links for those can either be found in the show notes or over on the website. Of course, just continuing to help spread the word of the show on social media, leaving reviews and sharing with friends and family is also a huge help. So thank you for all that you do. And now let's get started by introducing today's podcast or guest.

Michelle: In January 1901 year old Queen Victoria lay dying at Osborne House on the Isle of White. As the Queen lay peacefully while surrounded by family in another room, courtiers were frantically attempting to figure out what came next. As the last death of a sovereign had occurred in 1837. No one seemed to know what the procedure was, wrote Sir Frederick Ponsonby, the Queen's ordinary and assistant private secretary. We spent the evening looking up what had been done when George IV and William IV had died. With no photos for reference and few people alive who remembered the last sovereign's death, royal servants were at a loss. The ignorance of historical precedent in men whose business it is to know is wonderful, Reginald Bret Viscount Escher wrote. Cheekily. They had little time to find out. At 06:30 p.m. On January 22, queen Victoria died while being held by her grandson, Kaiser Wilhelm II. Though Victoria's oldest son, now King Edward VI, tried to control the narrative by releasing news of his mother's death, a media frenzy quickly took hold. From the start, things seemed to go wrong. The Queen had requested that she not be embalmed, so a coffin had to be ordered quickly. However, when the undertaker's assistant arrived, it was discovered that he had not brought the expected coffin as he claimed he needed to take the deceased queen's measurements. Unwilling to let the uncouth assistant touch the hallowed queen, the Kaiser and other courtiers took matters into their own hands. If the occasion had been a less grave and solemn one, there would have been much that was humorous in the Emperor's arangunging of the rather dull undertaker's assistant, randall Davidson, Bishop of Winchester, recalled the Emperor frightened the poor fellow into helpless obedience. The man was simply terrified. He was so unsuitable a person as it appeared to me that we declined to leave him as he wished in the room to take the necessary measurements. And as a matter of fact, the measurements were taken by the Emperor, Sir James Reed and myself, under the direction of the man who stood by and told us exactly what he wanted. It was altogether a curious scene. A fight also broke out between Henry Fitzalan Howard, 15th Duke of Norfolk, and Edward Hyde Villiers, lord Chamberlain over who had the royal right to arrange the funeral. The Duke of Norfolk, also the Earl Marshal, prevailed, causing bad blood between the two camps. The Lord Chamberlain is very sorry and is likely to decline to give assistance. One contemporary noted. Indeed, it will be lucky if these two ceremonial dignitaries don't come to loggerheads. The Duke of Norfolk, luckily, had some guidance. Three years before her death, queen Victoria had written that she wanted a state funeral with military honours, the same template royal funerals follow to this day. She wanted it done with respect, but simply curiously, for a woman obsessed with death and mourning, who had worn black for decades. In honour of her beloved husband, Prince Albert's early death, victoria requested a white funeral, with no public lying in state and no hearse to carry her coffin. However, although the Queen requested that her coffin be draped in white, she expected all of England to go into deep mourning. While this meant simple black clothes for working class and middle class Britons, what was expected of the royal family was unknown. There was great consternation and bewilderment in the Lord Chamberlain's office, as well as in the royal family, as to what was the correct mourning for the sovereign. The Queen's granddaughter, Princess Marie Louise of Uschlesswig Holstein, recalled it was 64 years since such a tragic event had taken place. No one knew what should be worn. Old prints and pictures of long ago were studied to see how to bring up to date and modernize the cumbersome trappings of mourning. But there were some aspects of Victoria's final departure that she kept hidden from her family. According to Julia Baird in Victoria, the Queen, Victoria, who loved romantic mementos and Gothic mystery, had left instructions for her trusted servants that were for their eyes only. It was an insanely long list of items she once buried with her, including rings and a myriad of photos of family members and her controversial low born servant, John Brown. She asked for the cast of Albert's hand, which he had always kept near her, to be put in her coffin. She wanted one of Albert's handkerchiefs and cloaks, a shawl made by Alice, and a pocket handkerchief of her faithful Brown. And so Reed, the Queen's private doctor, set to work with Victoria's trusted servants to hide her treasures in her custom coffin. Meanwhile, Ponsonby, who seems to have actually carried the main load of planning the events, had rushed in to London, where he found absolute chaos. There was infighting over which regiments and households had control over which aspects of the state funeral. And as the city buzzed with mourners, plans were made with breakneck speed. On the Isle of Wight, all was peaceful, the sun unusually cheerful and bright. On February 1, the Queen's body, accompanied by the royal family, was transported to the royal yacht Alberta, with crowds gathering to pay their respects. The small yacht was escorted by 40 British warships as their guns were fired in her honor and Chopin's funeral march was played on every ship, one newspaper reported. Hardly less solemn and striking than yesterday's great historic naval pageant was the night vigil on board the funeral barge, where the late Queen may almost be said to have lain in state upon the bosom of the waters over which, till a few hours ago, she held such regal sway. The coffin was guarded all night by trusty marines. Outside the basin lay the Victoria and Albert, with the King and other royal mourners on board. Beyond them, the long array of warships forming a glittering lane, scintillating with myriads of light and extending as far as the eye could reach across the still, dark waters of the Solent. In London, the city prepared for the procession of the Queen's coffin draped in white satin atop a military gun carriage pulled by white horses. In the London neighbourhood of Piccadilly, spectators paid top dollar to get a glimpse of the royal procession as it travelled the 3 miles from Victoria Station to the train station of the Great Western in Paddington, which would take the Queen to Windsor on February 2. Despite the pouring rain, all of London seemed to turn out, with author Henry James noting the incredibly and immeasurably vast sea of Mourners. In a first, cameramen were on the scene recording the parade of soldiers, royals, mourners and government officials as they marched to the station with the Queen's funeral cortege. Although 33,000 soldiers were in the city, more than 1000 spectators were injured in the rush to see this most solemn of parades. After a short train ride to Windsor, the funeral party began the procession on horseback and foot to St George's Chapel for the Queen's state funeral. But a calamity occurred when the horses pulling the gun carriage carrying the Queen's coffin broke free, sprinting off and leaving the gun carriage and the Queen in the dust. I had contemplated all sorts of things going wrong, the exhausted Ponsonby wrote, but such a mishap had never occurred to me. Prince Louis of Battenberg, the grandfather of Prince Philip, saved the day when he had the ingenious idea of having 138 naval guards dragged the carriage to the chapel with ropes, something now a royal tradition. According to Victoria's granddaughter, Princess Alice, members of the Royal Artillery in charge of the offending horses were furious and humiliated beyond words. This mishap apparently slowed the procession to the chapel, and those waiting for the funeral to begin at St George's Chapel were restless. Finally, the funeral party arrived. The solemn service attended by the kings of the United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal and Greece, and the future kings of Denmark and Sweden, went on with relatively few mishaps other than some seating mistakes. But Ponsonby's torture was not over yet. Humiliated by the horses breaking free from his mother's carriage. King Edward VI told him that if there was a similar mishap during his mother's burial on February 4, he would never speak to him again. To forestall another embarrassment, a rehearsal was held at 11:00 p.m.. The night before the burial, with horses and soldiers practicing by bearing a weighted stunt coffin to the Queen's final resting place at the Royal Mausoleum Frogmore in Windsor. The next day, Queen Victoria was laid arrest next to her beloved Albert at the Royal Mausoleum. Shockingly, a mentally ill soldier who had sneaked onto the grounds somehow made his way into the service and had to be escorted away by Ponsonby. However, the scene turned Poignant after the simple service was over. As her family closed the doors to the marbled grave, a sleet falling outside turned to snow, which brought stillness, silence, and the white funeral Victoria had always dreamed of. Her coffin was draped with white, the horses drawing her coffin were white and the marble of her grave was white. You have to hope, after all the angst that Sir Frederick Ponsonby got a good night's sleep. Burials and mourning were of huge community importance, and if the Queens could go wrong, it makes you wonder what else could happen on such a solemn occasion? Joining me today is Samantha Perrin. Sam is a social historian of the long 19th century, focusing primarily on death practices and cemeteries from that period. She holds an Ma in Victorian Studies from Burkebeck University of London and is currently researching Victorian burial reform and the funerals that go disastrously wrong. She has previously delivered talks to the national archives museum. Show off. Camden History society welcome trust pride in Stem, Dickens fellowship and the museum of London. She is here today to share some of the research she has uncovered of burial practice and funerals from this period going wrong. So get comfortable and let's meet today's guest.

Michelle: Hi, Sam. Thank you so much for joining me this evening.

Sam Perrin: Hi, Michelle. Thank you very much for having me this evening. I'm very, very excited to be here.

Michelle: So am I. I can't wait till we get into the topic that we're going to be discussing. I think it's going to be really enjoyable. Before we do, do you want to just tell people a little bit about yourself and your background?

Sam Perrin: Sure. My name is Sam Perron and I have been a cemetery historian, researcher and tour guide for just over 20 years. I've led tours previously at Highgate Tower Hamlets, Hampstead, at Abney Park, amongst others. And I conduct research. My spare time, such as I'm quite interested in burial reform at the moment, and as well as funerals that have gone horribly, horribly wrong, those are my two sort of main areas of focus right now. But, yeah, generally speaking, I'm a researcher of the long 19th century, mainly pertaining to cemeteries and burials.

Michelle: It's a fairly big topic as well. I mean, there's so many different aspects that fall within that. And just from the areas that you're researching that you find of interest, you can see there are very specific paths that you can go down in terms of research just to kind of help set the scene in the context of this topic. Why would you say, in your opinion, people really are very much fascinated and interested in cemeteries, in mourning practices, in burial practices. I'm thinking specifically of the Victorian period, which is an area that you obviously research and are very much interested in. Why do you think we have this interest in that era the way that.

Sam Perrin: We do for a large part of where death is involved? I think the Victorians were very much more I hasten to use the term hands on, but in many cases that was exactly what it was. For example, if a relative passed away, it was very common for they to be laid out on the kitchen table or the main table in the lounge for people to come and pay their respects. So you had this direct relationship with death. The body would also be dressed for its funeral by relatives. I think there's an element of being involved in the process of death and mourning that we don't have as much of today. And I think a large part of that came from after the First World War where the sheer number of people that had died I think that it definitely saw the rise. She used the word the process being outsourced, but essentially it was. So you had a lot more undertakers and funeral arrangers taking care of details such as that, whereas before that was very much in the hands of the family. And I think also with death being I also don't want to say it was far more common because it's going to happen to all of us, but I think that the Victorians dealt with death on a far more frequent basis and this was largely down to not having these advanced standards of medicine that we enjoy today. So it was very common for people to spend a large part of the year dressed in dark morning gear, mourning some relation or another who'd passed on to the other side, as it were. So I think that plays a very much large part in this. But I think as a result of that, we have definitely become distanced from accepting that we are all going to die at some point. To the point where I think a lot of people don't like to discuss death because they find it either too creepy or it's awkward or they simply aren't happy with the idea that one day we're all going to go back to the Earth in one form or another.

Michelle: I think you're right. I think there's a sense of distance between us and that topic precisely that we don't converse about it, we don't reflect on it, we don't speak about it, it's just very hush hush. And whether that's like you mentioned, just because we don't have the same kind of mortality rate that the Victorians would have experienced, I think that's part of it. But I also think you're right. It's the fact that we ourselves are distanced from the whole process of caring for people in those moments of dying and then caring for them after death in the way that we would have seen 100 years ago, 200 years ago and more. It's taken care of by other people and we are just the bystanders of that process now rather than the participants in that process in a lot of cases.

Sam Perrin: I think you've absolutely put that perfectly. I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I think too, with going back through time, you did have an ideal, it was called ars moriendi, which essentially is the ideal of having a good death. And this was applicable to everybody and it was something that people strived towards. Now, the ideal of the good death or the principle of the good death essentially meant that you would pass onto the other side after having taken care of all of your financial, basically tying up loose ends. So emotional loose ends that needed to be tied up, you could make your peace with people you might have fought with, for example, or rebuilding family relationships or also taking care of actual monetary debts, taking care of spiritual debts. And it was a belief that ars Muriendi is actually the art of dying. That's what it means. And it was a belief that originated in Catholicism. It was adopted by Protestantism and then renewed by the Victorian evangelicalism. Sorry, there's a lot of isms in there. And yeah, I mean the ideal was to allow the dying to ascend to heaven with a clear conscience by ensuring that all practical, moral and spiritual loose ends were tied up prior to death. So the good death was also a very romanticized notion that allowed the dying to face their fate with fortitude as well as spiritual redemption. So I think that is something that there is an aspect of the good death that we now don't necessarily practice ourselves because we have been so distanced from it, as you so beautifully put earlier, removed from the process. I think, fortunately, thanks to things like death cafes and things like cemetery tours, for example, I think these definitely do start to make the conversations about death far more open and take out any taboos that people might think are related to the topic of death and just make it easier to discuss. Because let's be honest, it's something that's going to happen to every single one of us at some point or another. So I suppose the ideal of the good death is making peace with that, essentially. And I think there has been I mean, also we also live in a culture, don't forget that, particularly in the Western world, where there is such a pressure and to live longer, look younger. I mean, it's like living in instagram land where everything's beautiful and perfectly arranged and has beautiful colors and is very aesthetically pleasing. If you compare that to the actual reality of death and decay, that's not something people essentially want to see because they find it uncomfortable, was scary. So particularly with the Victorians, this practice of the philosophy of the good death didn't necessarily end at the moment of death, but it was continued by the deceased family and friends and how the deceased was mourned, buried and immortalized. So it really wasn't up to just that moment when somebody passed away. It did extend further beyond that. This is where you get, I suppose, essentially, this cast of thousands. When it came to in some instances, when it came to Victorian mourning, let's say, for example, let's use somebody famous as an example. You'd have people lining the streets, and I'd go so far as to say a lot of these funeral processions were actually very much stage managed with these large garden cemeteries being theatres in which this was all played. You know, I think there was also a case of very much keeping up with the Joneses when it came to expenditure and how much somebody would spend on that person's funeral. I suppose if you wanted to compare it to a modern day fact of life, I suppose preparing for a marriage could be viewed in the same way. The bigger the better, and the more money you spend on it, the more unforgettable it would be. And Victorians practice exactly the same thing, but in death.

Michelle: And I think you're right. I think it was very much a community thing. It was something that was shared by people. And I think part of that was this was a means of, like you mentioned, this was about the good death. And part of that was how they were mourned and helping them along the way and helping them to go to where they believed they should be. And tied into all of that were all of these different things, these rituals and processes that made up the things that they needed to do to ensure that everything from how they dressed, the types of stationery that they used, jewelry, hair attire lining the streets, directions that the body would travel in. I mean, so many different things, so many layers of superstition and ritual that were kind of placed onto this. And it's fascinating to unravel that and actually see connections with modern day practices and where they come from and how they very much relate to and tie into what the Victorians really started. I think. And I don't know if you want to extrapolate on that and explain some of that and to kind of explain some of the connections and the similarities that we have because of the Victorians when it comes to mourning and burial.

Sam Perrin: Sure. I mean, everything you've said is absolutely spot on. I suppose we could go so far as to as I earlier suggested a little earlier, that if you had to compare a Victorian funeral to a modern day wedding, I think these sorts of things were put on never for the person concerned, but always for the other attendees, if you want to look at it like that. And people would spend enormous amounts of money making sure that their final send off was one that their relative would have been proud of. For example, the funeral and the procession itself. You'd have usually a very elaborately engraved hearse drawn by black horses with ostrich feather plumes atop their heads and a suitable plot in a nice burial ground or cemetery and a headstone with in some cases, both the rich and the poor were faced with the prospect of financial reputational and spiritual ruin. If these things were not necessarily covered to the satisfaction of all the other bystanders I guess I mean Charles Dickens himself. He was a very, very fierce critic of all of the pomp and ceremony that was associated with Victorian funerals. I mean, his views were made abundantly clear in his last will and testament, a stipulation of which, and I have a little excerpt here. It says I emphatically direct that I be buried in an inexpensive, unostentatious and strictly private manner. That no public announcement be made of the time or the place of my burial. That at the utmost, not more than three plain morning coaches be employed and that those who attend my funeral wear no scarf, cloak, black bow, long hat band or any other such revolting absurdity. So you can kind of pick up from that that he certainly found these very elaborate and very expensive displays to be very distasteful. I mean, this also comes through and Dickens is fantastic for this because it comes through in his work so readily. It was articles and essays that he published, too, in things like household words. For example, from one article entitled from the Raven and the Happy Family, he takes aim at the very unscrupulous keeping up with the Joneses style tactics that were employed by undertakers to pressure the grieving into spending more money. Than was. Actually, you know, again, if I may, I'll just give you a little excerpt of what he wrote, just to give you some context. A hearse enforcer says he, he being the undertaker, no repair will be sufficient. I beg your pardon, sir, but when we buried Mr. Grundy at number 20, there was four on him, sir. I think it's just right to mention. So you can see that the undertakers were unscrupulous and took advantage very much of people's desire to basically put on this ridiculous that sounds very distasteful for me to say ridiculous, but it was. A lot of people went into enormous levels of states of financial ruin trying to make sure that they could give their loved ones a final send off that met with expectations. And we'd even go so far as to the Victorians rather, we'd even go so far as to employ the services of professional mourners or MutS, which was a service offered by undertakers. In fact. Again. Thanks very much. Charles Dickens. But if you look at Oliver Twist, Oliver, for one point, is employed as a professional mourner and essentially walking down with his black wand and tall top hat, looking very sorrowful and very somber following the funeral procession. Or in some instances leading it because they wanted to make it look like you had more mourners or more grieving people than you actually did. And with, I think, burial reform, which is one of know areas of Know, Edwin Chadwick was famously, you know, looked into the conditions, as William McKinnon did, too, and good old George Graveyard Walker, who was a surgeon, and their findings, essentially, with Paris churchyards, essentially got them closed down for a period. But the point I was going to make is that these undertakers were actually so unscrupulous that they would continue burying people into places that simply didn't have space for them. So these parish churchards became horribly oversubscribed. So these people were essentially paying to have their loved one dropped into the ground with perhaps an inch of earth on top of them until the body could break down and the bones removed and the coffin hacked to pieces and used for firewood. So the horrible irony in this is that by following through all of these expected rituals, the people who were actually giving the biggest disrespect to the dead were the undertakers themselves, who were supposed to be aiding this transition for the deceased soul and aiding in the ideal of the good death by giving somebody a very decent send off. So there's a horrible irony in that. And there was actually a bit of a backlash from the public after finding out that what the undertakers were doing and what led to these horrible churchyards being in the condition they were. In fact, I found a wonderful cartoon from 1849 and 1850, there are two of them in which from Punch, of course, which is a fantastic publication in which they illustrate and show the unemployed mutes soon to be out of work because the public turned on them because they thought, Hang on. We're being ripped off by guys who are essentially treating our dead with the utmost disrespectful.

Michelle: I think that's really very significant because, as you rightly said, this could put families into financial ruin. When we think about particularly working class families, it was a sizable amount of their income and it was something very much that they felt that they owed their loved one. It was part of that process that they needed to do. And here they are almost being taken advantage of. So you can understand the uproar, you can understand their reaction to that, and then suddenly, therefore, there is this need for change because you've got practices that are very questionable taking place and something that we can then see the significance of that because it's very much played into how we bury our loved ones today. And these are significant moments in our history in terms of the process of how we really do help our loved ones after death and what we do with them when we're burying them.

Sam Perrin: Oh, absolutely. And I can't remember for Love nor Money who made this or who came up with this original quotation or sort of thought, but the idea was that you could tell very much about a society with regards to how they treat their dead. And I think that's something that was very just as valid then as it is now.

Michelle: Well, I think you can see it in every single culture, can't you, that it is just something there across all cultures, across all landscapes, all periods of time. The ritual around death, how they're treated, the things that are placed in the grave with them, how they're mourned, all of these things have had such significance for that culture. It's evolved. It might have changed, but essentially the same kinds of attitudes and beliefs and desires in the process of what they're doing haven't really changed. And I think when we reflect on that, we realize we are so connected with all of our ancestors in terms of our belief systems and our desires in carrying out these rituals and the intention behind them. I think you see this kind of pattern of connections that are just everywhere. Really?

Sam Perrin: Absolutely. That and if we fast forward from the Victorian period, I think that there definitely has will be a resurgence in people going back and looking into their family histories. And I think that's largely down to shows like Who Do You Think You Are? And as a result, as a direct result of that, when the show was at its zenith, we saw a huge increase in the number of visitors to cemeteries and people also wanting to find their relatives and investigating their family histories. It's actually thanks to that in a large part, that with the increased interest from members of the public and people wanting to look into their family histories and come round to burial grounds and churchyards and cemeteries, that I think that actually has taken away some of the fear and also revulsion I hate to use that word for the idea of dealing with death. So in a way, it's almost coming back to a full circle in that I'd say a very reasonably short period of time, maybe from after the First World War up until maybe the 1990s, 2000s, when shows like Who Do You Think You Are? Sort of really came to the top and a lot of people were watching. And that appreciation for our relatives has always been something going back to Celtic times. Our relatives were revered and worshipped. In some instances in other cultures, too. So I think it's an interesting full circle that we have. And I'll come with regards to people coming back and being not as afraid of death as they once were saved 30, 40, 50 years ago.

Michelle: So coming to your research, one of the areas that you look into is absolutely fascinating to me, and this is the funerals that go disastrously wrong. And I suppose the first thing to ask is where you get those kinds of sources from, how you know about them, how we have this evidence of them in the first place.

Sam Perrin: Well, my favorite website in the entire world is the British Newspaper Archive, and a large number of stories that I've uncovered relating to funerals that go hideously, horribly wrong have come from there. And, I mean, the reason I got interested in this is because when doing research, as you mentioned earlier, it can branch off down so many rabbit holes. And I find research is like a spider web. You're going on one straight line, and the next thing you've got 18 different strands coming off it. I suppose any researcher can point to their own computer and just say it started off as being one thing, and the next thing you go, you got 40 different folders open. But with just researching in general, I did encounter a few without looking for them, a few instances of where funerals have gone wrong, and I started to think, well, you know what? This might be a very interesting topic to look into.

Michelle: I mean, it just conjures up all kinds of things. I mean, you just start to wonder, what is it that could happen? What were some of the things that were the talking points? Because for them to make their way into a newspaper means that these were significant moments, in the sense that because these were communities coming together, it was part of that process of explaining what.

Sam Perrin: Happened and recording that moment just looping back very quickly to the good death. As I mentioned at the beginning of the talk, the practice continued by the deceased family and friends in how the deceased were mourned, buried and immortalized. And this is where some of these examples, I don't know, just ignite that in a binfire of absolute disaster. So let me find a couple of my I mean, one of the ones that comes up quite frequently is the story of Henry Taylor in 1872, who was a pallbearer at a funeral taking place in Kenslegreen Cemetery, which is the first of what are collectively known as the Magnificent Seven within London. And whilst carrying this coffin to its final resting place, he, I believe, got his foot trapped around a piece of wood or the root of a tree. Something disturbed him, he tripped, and the coffin landed directly on him and crushed him to death, essentially. And that's one of the articles that I found, that it's a horrendous thing to have happened and very distressing for the people who managed to witness that. But it's one of the few examples I found that is actually illustrated and I think it was either the Illustrated London News or the Police Illustrated News where I sourced that from. But your readers are welcome to put in Killed by a coffin at Kenzel Green Cemetery if they have access. In fact, it's been blogged about extensively. The lovely Kate Cheryl, who goes by the username of Burials and beyond on Twitter, has written about that. So it's definitely worth having a look at in more detail for those who are interested. I mean, goodness, I've actually managed to categorize I found so many examples that this I've categorized them to various headings and let's have a look. I mean, there was one example of the fear of disease was another one which was something that plagued the Victorians because I suppose stemming back to the Industrial Revolution, people were crammed into tiny little tenements and moved into cities and shared small apartments, living in very close quarters of each other. And unfortunately, with contagious diseases around like cholera and smallpox and typhus, this led to very unsanitary conditions and this is actually reflected in and I'll quickly open up my little example and find for you. So this particular article comes from 1893 and the heading reads terrified by smallpox. Scandalous Scene at a Funeral an extraordinary and scandalous scene was witnessed at Barnton yesterday afternoon at the funeral of Anne Assels, a married woman who died from Cholera and smallpox. The burial was fixed for 03:00 and when Mr Bennett, the sanitary inspector, arrived at the house, he found the body in bed in a fearful condition, not having been laid out and the coffin close to the door. The husband and son were in the house but nobody else could enter, or would enter, I should say. The inspector conveyed the coffin upstairs and the body rolled in a sheet and saturated with carbolic. Acid was placed in it. A crowd of people congregated outside, but no one would help Mr Bennett and the husband as best they could and with great difficulty got the coffin downstairs, then dragged to the doorway, reared on end and put into the hearse, which had been backed up. The vehicle was then driven to the parish churchyard where the burial took place, Mr Bennet acting as carrier. The bedding and clothing were afterwards burned and the house disinfected. So in essence, this woman was denied a timely burial and a timely being laid out and prepared for burial because of people's fear of contracting smallpox, because that's how she died. I mean, I also came across another example of this and this pertained to cholera. And this was taken from 1866 and it took place at Tower Hammer Cemetery in East London. This is called drunk at a funeral at the Thames Police Court on Monday. Henry George Marsh, age 26, described as a coachman, was charged with being drunk and incapable of taking care of himself, his hearse and a pair of horses in the Whitechapel Road. James Braybrook, a police constable, stated that on Sunday evening his attention was called to a mob collected about a hearse and two horses opposite Whitechapel Church. The prisoner was soon on the ground, very drunk and had just fallen off the box of the horse and was calling up Cholera. Cholera. He took him into custody and sent the hearse and horses to the greenyard. The prisoner had been to the Talhamlet Cemetery with a funeral and got drunk. The prisoner said he had driven his horses to which the hearse was attached, with the body of a man who had died of cholera and a large quantity of brandy was given to him. He also was told to suck plenty of camper and did so. Mr Parkidge told the prisoner his conduct was disgraceful and discharged him. So these two examples, I think, know, just crystallize the Victorian's fear of disease in that they actually did affect how other people were or in some cases were not buried on time.

Michelle: And like you were mentioning right at the start of before, giving those illustrations very much tied into the notion of the good death, because here you have something not illustrative of what you would typically see when it comes to burial and the treatment of the body. And so you can really see how disease, infection, those fears played into those denials. They wouldn't do those things for fear of the ramifications if they were handling the body. And, yeah, I think it's something you still see played out across the world, isn't it, when it comes to treatment of bodies after death, when serious outbreaks of illness are rampant in communities.

Sam Perrin: Well, I mean, I think you're absolutely spot on and I think the most recent example of that would be COVID deaths. And I think that's something that's obviously within the memory of most today. I mean, it's funny how people's fears and also Victorian values, or in some cases the lack or perceived lack of Victorian values would come forth in terms of the Victorians'distaste for such things. I mean, I've come across one particular funeral where it was actually of a bigamist I'm just going to open the article now. And in essence, it was the funeral of a guy by the name of Edward Walters. And this happened in Gloucester. It's a suburb of Westbury on Trim. Now, the deceased guy was a retired tradesman and a few years prior had left his house sorry, left his wife and took up residence with another woman. And when apparently people didn't this didn't sit well with people because it was bigamy. And when you got married, you were there to protect that person and stay with him through thick and thin. And so a lot of angry feeling was aroused by this action of him leaving his wife and moving in with somebody else. And apparently the police had previously tried to break up previous hostile demonstrations about this fact. So I think the Victorians were a funny bunch in the respect that if you were going to have an affair you could go ahead and do it as long as you kept it. You know, the fact that so many people were angered about this it basically erupted at his funeral when a huge crowd assembled in the churchyard and as the body was being conveyed from the house people started whistling and crying brigham Young, brigham Young. Now, Brigham Young wasn't the name of the man being buried. He was actually a member of the Church of the Latter day Saints who had had, I think, 46 different wives. And so they were starting to accuse the man being buried of being Brigham Young. And that was freely indulged on by the crowd. So as he was actually buried the spectators quietened down a little bit and as he was plopped into the ground the loud cheers were raised and the crowd seemed to regard the bearers of the coffin as being men who performed a public service. So it's an example of people's criticisms of the lack of values with the person being buried. And there are so many examples, Michelle, that I've come across. I've got examples of weird things happening where funerals went horribly wrong. I've got examples of I mean, I'll give you one very quickly. Alcohol played a frequent part in this by the way, I hasten to add. I've come across stories of drunk men already being in the empty grave when the coffin had approached to be put in there. He had claimed that the grave was his and that was it, he's staying there. So he refused to move for the coffin. And the surface to continue. There was also a woman. Oh, my goodness. Woman. Essentially, women were some of the biggest perpetrators of creating a scene at a funeral. Let me quickly read you one particular story I found. This is particularly this is described again as a scandalous scene at a funeral. Now, bearing in mind that woman was supposed to be seen as the angels of the house and lovely and meek and mild and terrors of children and all the rest of it they're having this very maternal vibe going on and the story just flies in the face of it. An unseemly display of popular sentiment was witnessed at Panzantz Cemetery on Sunday. Thomas Oates, who'd only been married twelve months drowned himself on Tuesday night by throwing himself into the deepest parts of Penzance Harbor with a one and a quarter cord of old iron wrapped around his neck to which was secured by a piece of his mother in law's clothesline. The deceased, his wife and one child lived with the wife's brother and popular opinion attributed the suicide to an unhappy home. 2000 persons attempted attended the funeral until Prebendery Hedgeland moved from the grave. There was nothing more indecous than loud talking and laughing. When the Prebendery left, the mob tried to hustle the young widow and her mother into the grave. Failing this, they stripped the young woman of her widow's dress, bonnet, gloves and wedding ring. A policeman got her into the sexton's house and he and three volunteer preservers of the peace saw her safely home. They were followed by a jeering and shouting crowd, the worst offenders amongst them being women. Oh, wow. So, yeah, it certainly flies in the face of the image that women were supposed to try and maintain of being lovely motherly and caring and that sort of thing. I mean, I've found another example where the widow was, for reasons unnoted in the article, was hurled abuse at and chased by 2000 women who'd actually come to the funeral service and followed back to his house. They were very abusive toward him. God knows what he did. It's not detailed in the article, but as a result, these people were denied a pretty decent burial. I mean, one of the worst examples, if I find, and I'll end it on this particular thread here, I mean, this particular example actually happened in New York, and I suppose it's one anything could go wrong. It did. The headline reads extraordinary Funeral Incidents. Rioting, fainting kicking and biting. Extraordinary scenes were reported to have taken place at the funeral. William Osborne, a New York Bank messenger and a veteran of the Civil War. The military music and the funeral procession attracted a large crowd through which a man and a wagon attempted to drive. This led to quite a little riot and blows were exchanged, the man and the wagon finally being forced back. Panic ensued amongst the woman and considerable delay followed. At the cemetery, when the coffin had been lowered, the widow and her son went forward to take a last look at it. The woman fainted, falling across it. Those in the rear of the crowd pressed forward to get a better view, and in the crush, several more women fainted. While the closing hymn was being sung, a man fell to the ground in an epileptic fit, kicking and struggling and violently trying to bite those who held him. So I feel desperately for poor William Osborne because, as I say, that was a case of where one thing could go wrong. Rather, it's a case of when it rains a suppose.

Michelle: You know, listening to those examples, I mean, you can see reflected in so many of them these kind of same threads, which is how the values of the day really were kind of coming through in some of the things that were taking place. I mean, you were just sharing the examples of the riotous women, if you like, but in the case of that suicide, here you have the women at the women coming to mourn and attend the funeral taking out their displeasure on his widow, probably because here's a man who's committed suicide. So therefore this is something to do with her as the wife, as that figure in the household. And so you can just see all of these attitudes play out in some of the behaviors that are being exhibited, whether it's to do with illness and infection, whether it's to do with displeasure at the corpse and their behaviors in life the bigamist, for example, or attitudes towards the other mourners and their relationship with the person in the grave. All of these different accounts, but yet at the heart of them are something quite similar, which is interesting.

Sam Perrin: Well, again, as you say, that throughout this research, there are so many different threads that have popped up that are absolutely fascinating just in terms of the human condition. I mean, something that came across loud and clear when researching this also was the animosity between nonconformists or dissenters and the Church of England. You see, by 1851, I think half of the British population were actually regarded as being dissenters or nonconformists. In other words, they didn't subscribe to the Church of England and they were not Anglican. So, yeah, I mean, the animosity between the Church of England and dissenters and nonconformists when it came to burial reform was, again, something else that you'd think it would be overlooked in the case of somebody being buried. But it was know, when Edwin Chadwick had published his report for the Health of Towns, that's what it was called, all of the evidence presented there showed a very, very large schism, a very large divide between nonconformists and Anglicans. And this came through loud and clear again in some of these examples of funerals that went disastrously wrong. I mean, I came across one example again from 1878 where a Church of England undertaker refused to bury a small child who had died because it had been unbaptized. It was a Baptist parishioner whose child had to be buried and because it was unbaptized, he refused to bury this small deceased baby. And they ended up having words at a funeral over something that must have already been such a traumatic affair for the parents and all friends and family. And yeah, there was a large conversation that ensued at the gravesite and very heated. And again, it's something that I had never considered previously, but it makes perfect sense given just how much you see when the burial form is being discussed about how nonconformists would be catered for as well as how the Anglicans would be catered for. Primarily, I'm referring to these large garden cemeteries that started popping up and all that kind of thing. And when these cemeteries opened up, they had set aside a certain area of unconsecrated ground in each, most of them with the exception of Avenue Park, which was all unconsecrated for people who didn't subscribe to the beliefs of the Church of England. And people actually started writing back saying, I'm sorry, but I feel as though the Anglicans are getting a better deal than the dissenters are. And then the Anglicans will pop up saying, oh, I think that the dissenters are getting a better deal than we are in terms of burial, know they've been looked on more fondly. And, you know, you would think that in a country that would actually look after their dead that way, there seemed to be, again, such animosity. And again, that just pops through loud and clear with some of the examples I found at these gravesites, which you.

Michelle: Wouldn't imagine that that would be the moment to see it kind of played out. But I suppose, like you said, it makes sense that it does, because this is, again, something that was of such value to them. So of course, you can kind of see why it would come through here that they would feel so strongly about it. And if you perceive somehow that maybe your loved ones aren't going to get the same kind of treatment or have that same set of advantages because you see these other members, this other group who are not the same, as you in terms of religion and you somehow.

Michelle: Perceive that they're getting a better deal.

Michelle: And your loved one's good death depends on them having access to all of these things. You can understand why they'd be so cross. And why there would be this back and forth, back and forth, and how it would sometimes play out quite literally over someone's gravesite and their coffin in the way that you mentioned.

Sam Perrin: Well, absolutely, that's very succinctly put. And I think with funerals, anyway, when a loved one's passed away, it's already such an emotionally charged event. So as you said, it's easy to imagine that these things would things would become so heated and what was already an emotional moment and come spilling over in a place that it would be deemed by other people to be absolutely unsightly, unseemly, and in terrible taste to conduct yourself that way at somebody else's passing. Just to put this again, to add a little bit of context to Victorian funeral services and processions mourning was, I hate to use the word ridiculously or very, very strictly adhered to, in that there were so many rules and regulations that you had to partake in and hoops that you had to jump through when it came to somebody else's know. Women particularly were expected to go and purchase brand new morning outfits if they could afford that. And you had places like Peter Robinson's family morning warehouse pop up. Imagine Carphone warehouse, but selling morning accessories and fashions from France so you could go and pick up all of the latest Parisian morning accessories and fashions that had just come over from the continent and put forward. Again, just going back to what I was saying earlier, it was almost like this cast of thousands acting out of production in these large garden cemeteries that were the theater for all of this unfolding. And you had to mourn for a certain period of time, depending on your relationship to the deceased, and wear certain color clothes for a certain period of time. And then after wearing the initial black, which was known as dark mourning or deep mourning, rather, I should say, I apologize, you had one, a period that was known as half mourning, where you were still expected to wear dark colors like deep purples and dark grays, but you were still, in theory, mourning. And women adhered to this or had to adhere to this a lot more strictly than men did. And as you mentioned at the beginning of the talk, I think even the stationery, you had to have black lines stationery, I mean, even these women's petticoats had to be black because you were expected to show that grief had penetrated to the innermost core of your being. So for something so distasteful and nasty and ugly to burst out at a gravesite, whatever the reason was, was deemed to be incredibly bad decorum. And as you rightly mentioned, it was enough to warrant a report in local newspapers.

Michelle: Before we head back to the podcast, if you haven't already visited The Haunted History Chronicles Patreon Page, now is the perfect time to join, to listen and enjoy a multitude of additional podcasts, merchandise, mail and other written materials. It's a great way to support the podcast to continue to grow and put out additional content to share guests and their stories, as well as helping the podcast to continue to be enjoyed. You can find the link in the episode Description Notes as well as on The Haunted History Chronicles website. And remember, you can always help support guests in the podcast by coming and liking the social media pages and chatting over there. It's truly all very much appreciated. And now let's head back to the podcast.

Michelle: This is where it's really quite interesting that there is so much material around funerals, around burials, good or bad, that this was so integral and so central rather to their everyday experiences that it was marked out in newspapers everywhere in this fashion in terms of announcing someone's death. And then commentary on the funerals, particularly, like you've mentioned, if something has occurred, because it was so much part of almost like a spectator type thing, it was the theater of the day, it was the talking point, either good or bad, which is a fascinating social commentary. And the opportunity to look back on that is so revealing in terms of attitudes and perspectives and things that were happening around this time frame.

Sam Perrin: I think, Michelle, everything you've said is absolutely spot on. And something else that has dawned on me, not just where funerals went wrong, but even where funerals went perfectly ahead in terms of how they were think. You know, one great example of that would be Catherine Booth. One of the things that popped up when doing earlier research a few years ago was how certain funeral processions could actually be hijacked in order to put forward a political ideal know, protest what was deemed to be or perceived to be a social injustice against the deceased. And even in the case of, you know, some commentators noted about her funeral that William Booth had always almost staged it as such so that he was trying to enrich the coffers of the Salvation Army for which they were both founders. They had young girls selling. They were called Hallelujah Lassies, and they were selling, like, a program of what the day would involve about her funeral procession, where it was going to start, where people were going to meet, and you could actually buy tickets. To attend one of the services for her at the you know, again, it's not an accusation that you would ever think would be leveled at an organization like the but, you know, some critics of her funeral that day. Again, as you know, tried to insinuate or suggest that William Booth had, in addition to laying his wife to rest had used opportunistically used what should be a very tragic event as having an almost fate like atmosphere. There was almost a certain joy about it with the bands playing. But that said, they accused him of trying to make money off his own wife's funeral, which is insane if you think about it. But I came across not one, but a number of criticisms of how her funeral service and procession had actually been.

Michelle: Dealt with, which again is just fascinating, isn't it, to kind of understand the motivations and the rationale and the reasons why someone would do that. I mean, here you've got a husband simply mourning and trying to give his wife this send off, befitting her and involving the community as part of that because that was the thing that you did. You involved people to help send your loved one on in death. And here you've got critics attacking that as somehow he's monopolizing on this situation to benefit the Salvation Army and his organisation and probably himself to a degree. And what that shows is interesting because it poses so many different questions. Was it the Salvation Army itself and mistrust around that or the motivations for why it was there? Again, it levels so many intriguing aspects and questions to something as to why these things happened. Because the fact is, you would not like you mentioned, you would simply not expect something like that to happen around someone's death. There's something very distasteful in it. And so the fact that people would take these opportunities to show their own feelings and their own protestations at these moments, again, I think is quite significant in terms of what it potentially tells you and shows you and reveals to you about motivations of the day and thoughts of the day.

Sam Perrin: Oh, absolutely. That I mean, just to demonstrate that, I've got a beautiful example of a man who passed away in 1886. His name was John Day and he was a very respected master chimney sweep who was contracted by the Lambeth Workhouse. Now, a week earlier, this happened on the 31 January, his funeral procession. Now, a week earlier, John Day had reported for duty to the workhouse for this colleague and son, and the two sweeps had entered the flu, which is what they were supposed to be cleaning out, but were forced to retreat due to the extreme residual heat that they experienced. It had been coming off by the boiler, which had only been extinguished a couple of hours earlier. Now, apparently, according to the sort of, I guess, trading standards of the day in health and safety, this is a particularly treacherous position to be in and treacherous working conditions because the workhouse representative chose to ignore the standard rule of 12 hours. You couldn't send somebody down to sweep chimneys or go into the flu unless it had enough time to cool off. Now, this thing had been left to cool off for only five, as opposed to the standard period of safe period of 12 hours. So the workhouse representative insisted that Day and his team complete the job by 05:00 that morning. I mean, can you imagine what time that poor man must have had to get up to work if he had to complete the job by 05:00? A.m. So poor John Day entered the flu. He reentered the flu at 330 and they emerged shortly after that, where he collapsed. Dead, absolutely dead. And what actually happened is smacks of a cover up, quite frankly. Day's colleague and son were the only two witnesses present who were not called on to speak. The only two people who were actually there were not asked to give evidence. That's bonkers, absolutely bonkers. And it was recorded that Day hadn't entered the flu whatsoever. And he'd been sitting on the top hauling out sick when he died, which again, is completely and utterly untrue. Now, the workhouse representative who made all of these claims was never actually held accountable for effectively sending John Day to his death on that know, in the early hours. And I think what really riled people up and got people incredibly angry is that this poor man was essentially forced into a position that his own safety was put at risk by. Well, he ultimately died as a result of complete and utter negligence at the hands of his employers. And the thing that I think stung for all of those people is that a verdict to accidental death by suffocation was returned at the inquest. And that was something that Day's friends and family and colleagues and fellow temperance he was a temperance supporter. In other words, he didn't drink alcohol, which is very much like the Salvation Army, actually, funnily enough. Anyway, all of his friends and fellow temperance supporters and. Everyone who knew him were absolutely staggered. So as a way of, I suppose, a peaceful protest, they all came to his funeral procession along with another 6000 other Mourners who didn't necessarily know him. They followed the glass Hearst that carried him to his final journey to Manor Park. So again, I think this is an example, a lovely example of a very unfortunate situation where somebody has been wronged, horribly wronged, and people came out in droves to support him and show their distaste of the verdict that had been returned unfairly.

Michelle: And I think you do see this played out at funerals. That again, because they were announced in the way that they were and people were aware of these deaths that it did almost stir up, I want to say political kind of motivations, but it's social motivations too. Here are people taking this moment to silently protest against something, to stand up for something, and to show that they are simply with this person who was worked to death effectively and they are standing with him at the funeral. And the message that that then puts out is quite profound. When you've got the numbers that you just mentioned, 6000 Mourners, that's no small feat. And I think you see it played out in so many different ways, don't you? Because you have it. When it comes to the attendance of people who've committed crimes, people of particular note where there is interest, where there is intrigue, when it draws people in, rightly or wrongly, human emotions involved. And they feel so passionately about something behind that person, whether it's that they dislike something about them or they want to stand with them for something, you see it played out in how they conduct themselves coming together to be there for whatever reason it is. And that's a fantastic example, I think, of the power of people coming together in death to say what happened to this person was very, very wrong and we don't stand for and we don't agree with the verdict that was reached and how workers are basically treated.

Sam Perrin: Everything you've said is absolutely correct. And something else that is also very thought provoking about this is the divide between the different classes in Victorian England at that time. This is a perfect, perfect example of that. That was a working class man who was cleaning flus and chimneys at 05:00 in the morning, or rather expected to be finished by 05:00 a.m.. And people back in those days worked incredibly long days, for incredibly long hours. And cleaning out these big industrial flus, it couldn't have been a pleasant job and one that would eventually take its toll on your health, I would have thought. But again, I don't know what class the representative of the workhouse was, but I'm guessing it was probably middle to upper. And so for people to return it almost dehumanizes that person by returning a verdict of accidental death, making it his fault he wasn't actually even worthy of the representative being held accountable for his death. And that's something I think is a tremendous injustice. And as you've said, 6000 people following the glass hearse that's. People showing solidarity with something that was a ghastly miscarriage of justice.

Michelle: Yeah, simply that it's them showing their commitment with their feet, with their attendance that they don't agree with it. And what's really kind of beautiful in that is that it's something that has stayed. People can find that and learn about that story. So in some ways that moment that miscarriage of justice gets righted because people are aware of it, if that makes sense. And when you've got people turning up and being at a funeral with those kinds of numbers again, it's going to be something that makes the press and has that public attention and that interest and so it's going to sit alongside the inquest and the verdict that's probably been printed in the press also. But here you've got the vindication if you like, the other side of the story. And it's quite a weighty other side of the story because again, 6000 people turning up is pretty much saying you're wrong, this wasn't an accident. There's more to this. And we are here in protest and that's something that we can still read and we can still understand and still know that person's story and recognize it as precisely. That something that shouldn't happen and something that we should really be mindful of even today when we think about workers and the type of conditions that they have around the know. It's something that we should still be reflecting upon. And here you've got a fantastic case, I think, from that time period. That precisely shows why well, just based.

Sam Perrin: On what you were saying, Michelle, I think something that just came to me now in terms of I suppose we would regard this as being corporate manslaughter today, and something that came through loud and clear as we were talking about this was the Grenfell fire. Yes, oh gosh, a number of years back and nobody has actually ever been held accountable for that yet. And those two stories actually more similar than I realized because you still have people who are using the memorial and going to make their feelings known. I believe that there was another march recently demanding justice for the people who died in that fire and the similarities between the two cases, although maybe 150 years apart, are very stark when you look at it like that. And I suppose it gives me a little bit of hope for humanity that when something has been some kind of horrible tragedy and total miscarriage of justice has occurred like that, that people are still good and still have enough of a moral compass about them to turn around and say, I'm sorry, this is wrong. We don't accept this.

Michelle: And I think when they share that voice, when you see that played out I think it's that legacy that's often the lasting thing. And I think, again, there's something very powerful in that, I think. And when we think of the Grenfell disaster, I think there is going to be as much, if not far more evidence about people's protests, their discontent, their continual seeking of justice that will outlast anything else, to be honest. And again, I think that's quite a powerful advocacy for change and a powerful thing to recognize, I think, and to remember that that is what people should be looking at and understanding why so that it doesn't happen again.

Sam Perrin: Absolutely, that and something else that also dawned on me, again, just pertaining to know, I suppose you could look at it as being also very much a class issue. You had people who'd come looking for work, people from other countries, the borough of Kensington and Chelsea, or Chelsea and Kensington rather, is one of the richest in not just London but in the country. So for something like that to have happened, where security measures were completely overlooked and so many people lost their lives in such hideous conditions, again, it's very similar to John Day in the respect that it almost what's the word I'm looking for? Disrespects every single person that was involved and lost their life that day.

Michelle: Well, I think it speaks to, doesn't it, sadly, somehow, that working class people, people of certain positions, their lives somehow have less value. And I think it's something that we have seen played out in so many different scenarios and occasions throughout history. But when you have those moments of protest and people standing up against that, the social reform that often happens as a result, the change that often happens is something that then echoes through generation after generation after generation in very powerful ways. And again, I think those are the legacies that I think we have to kind of try and also respect and understand that people and what they did could have that social impact. And again, I think it speaks brilliantly, I think, to how wonderful people can be. And like you mentioned, that moral compass that you see them having and how it often then gets played out in these types of.

Sam Perrin: I mean, just also just touching very quickly on, I suppose, another thing between the wealthy and the poor was. I learned a huge amount from the lovely Hayden Shah, who is one of the trust managers at Abney Park Cemetery. She does a huge amount of work on a project called Abney Unearthed, which is a Heritage Lottery funded and London Borough of Hackney funded initiative, whereby people who were buried in common graves are now being researched because in many cases the cemetery is not mapped out to include them. So this project has particularly been very poignant to see how much work they've actually done with quite literally crawling on their hands and knees to find a certain common grave. Now, by common grave. What I mean is, it was slightly better than a pauper's grave, which is a different thing, but it's where families couldn't necessarily forward a big showy send off for their loved ones who'd passed away. And they were essentially buried in a grave that could contain up to maybe ten, maybe 15, maybe 20 other people that they never knew in life. These graves were, generally speaking, to the best of my knowledge, not marked as well as other graves or burial spots would be. And a lot of the people who were buried there essentially ended up being nameless entities, whilst you had the more wealthy and affluent people having these big, exorbitantly, expensive monuments, I suppose, like a business card when they were alive, to make sure that we all remembered them. But I think the other side of the coin is that a lot of these common graves people, a weren't buried with their family members, and B, simply sat in a hole in the ground without so much as a name. And I think there's something very sad about that. I think, again, it's a very interesting indictment on our society in terms of who is worthy of such big, fancy schmancy graves and funeral processions and who isn't.

Michelle: Yeah, it's the lacking of the pomp and ceremony, isn't it? They've had the bare minimum. And again, I think, like everything else in life, of course, in death, you see this vast divide playing out, whether it's burials, where you see guinea graves and the tombstones marking plenty of people on one side, and then on the other side of the gravestone marker to show all those buried there or those who don't have any kind of marker at all. Then all the way through to, like you mentioned, these very elaborate representations of this person with these markers that are just so grandiose in comparison, because it's a way of showing something about that person and the wealth and the status. Like I mentioned, that pomp and status. So you get that whole gambit played out in the different classes and what you see and like I said, just like in life, you see it played out in death and the type of send off that they received and how.

Sam Perrin: They were handled in and again, you know, Charles Dickens put it so succinctly and so comprehensively. He wrote an article, again, from the wonderful Household Words. It was entitled trading in Death. And it began several years have now elapsed since it began to be clear that to the comprehension of most rational men, that the English people have fallen into a condition much to be regretted in respect of their funeral customs. A system of barbarous show and expense was found to have gradually erected itself above the grave, which, while it could possibly do no honor to the memory of the dead, did great dishonor to the living as inducing them. To associate the most solemn of human occasions with unmeaning memories, dishonest, debt, profuse waste and a bad example and an utter oblivion of responsibility. And I think it's a very cutting way of I suppose, again, on a practical level, it was unnecessary, but people did believe that this would ensure that you had a great well, a good death. And it all links back to the good death, doesn't it's?

Michelle: A very strong condemnation on those profiteering from it, those helping, because you can have the belief in the good death and what that means. But then when you have other people taking advantage and these enterprises being set up almost well, showing, well, this is how that could play out, this is how it looks, what you then is you almost have this keeping up, like you said, keeping up with the Joneses. What you see one person doing, you then have to do and to replicate or be better and be grander. And so it is a very kind of stark rebuke, isn't it, on people playing into that and playing that game to the disadvantage of families, but to the advantage of their own pockets, which is essentially what it became. It became big trade, big business.

Sam Perrin: Absolutely. That and I mean, you know, one of the most, I think, telling examples of things like this, where you had absolutely unscrupulous people involved in the final passage of people into the grave. Mrs Henry Woods, East Lynn one of the characters comments that, and I'm going to quote this, there were creditors of all this is following somebody's funeral, by the way. There were creditors of all sorts for small sums and for great, for five or ten pounds up to five or 10,000. Some were civil, some were impatient, some loud and rough and angry. Some came to put in executions on the effects and some to arrest the body. In other words, if you weren't able to pay up to ensure that your loved one had that final send off, they would literally hold the body hostage until you could cough up that money. That's insanity. You'd never imagine that something like that might happen today. I'm pretty sure it probably does. But when looked at it in that context, I find that a lot of Victorian literature really did come to the fore and give wonderful examples of what actually used to happen with people suffering such an indignity and death and their loved ones being put through such a trauma whilst trying to send them off to their final resting place.

Michelle: We maybe don't necessarily appreciate and can understand, but we have to bear in mind that this is a period where social support, support from the government, support from the local community, was far less. And, for example, if you lost the main breadwinner, your financial circumstances were difficult and precarious as it was. But then if you're having to find this money to pay for their burial and to send them off in a manner that is just somewhat decent to the best that you can. We've got to bear in mind that that might take their entire savings. This is something that could force people out of their homes and into workhouses themselves. And it's a kind of a pretty stark cycle of hardship. And I think what you see played out in this time frame in particular are very loud critics of workhouses, of conditions, of the poor, of housing, of burial practices, of kind of all these aspects of life for those people living on the breadline, those working class people trying to get a better deal for you know, you do have people like Charles Dickens and other people speaking out to try and change that, to bring about these reforms, whether it's through workhouse reforms, through burial reforms, to make life just a little bit more fair. And I think it's something that you really see very powerfully during this period of time.

Sam Perrin: Absolutely. And speaking of fierce critics of such unscrupulous and greedy undertakers and anybody associated with them, Edwin Chadwick, the backlash from the public, the health of towns, research that he presented to the government on the state of parish churchyards, there was a massive, monstrous backlash toward people in those exact lines of work. So undertakers, as I mentioned at the beginning of the talk, some of these mutes punch published a couple of fantastic cartoons that showed them being put out of business because people turned around and said, I'm sorry, this is exorbitant. We don't have to pay this. You guys are making money off our tragedy. And unfortunately, even if you look at some of the working class customs, while a middle class, upper class woman would be expected to go and purchase brand new morning outfits, women who were working class women basically would get one of their day dresses and dunk it into these huge, stinking pots of black dye to make an instant morning dress. And for a large part of the year, due to infectious diseases and such a high mortality rate, where people were also, in effect, being worked to death before certain working regulations were introduced, it was common to see people wearing black for a large part of the year. And I've just thought of a very modern alternative to what we were talking about with regards to people living on the poverty line and how, I mean, back in the Victorian period, it was like a burial society, whereby, I suppose, like a funeral insurance. I guess if you look at it that way, people would pay a penny a week towards making sure that they would have or could afford a decent send off for their loved ones. So there was that put in place. But still, given the fact that especially if you look at from the 1880s onwards, you had something that was called the long depression, which was essentially a massive economic downturn, so times were even tighter for people, and cemeteries like Tower hamlets became horribly oversubscribed, even though they were originally one of the garden cemeteries. A very interesting modern day take on this is it is a book called Tales From the Caseload of a Council for Funeral Officer. It's called Ashes to Admin and it's by Evie King. You can find her on Twitter. It has got a four and a half star rating on Amazon and many other publishers. It's an extraordinary book regarding her life or her professional life of basically dealing with people who had nobody else to bury them. And I think that's a very interesting take and it's something that I really recommend people go out and read. It's both moving, sometimes hysterically funny, but also a very interesting indictment on what happens when you die and the practicalities of it. And I suppose that is a 2023 lens through which the subject that we've disputed is now being looked at, if that makes sense.

Michelle: Oh, gosh, absolutely. I'm going to have to read that one. It's not something it's not a book that I've come across, to be honest, but it's definitely going on my reading list.

Sam Perrin: Oh, absolutely. It's called Ashes to Admin tales from the Caseload of a Council Funeral Officer. And it's by Evie King.

Michelle: I'm going to add that as soon as we finish talking, it's going on in my Amazon cart. They get good business from me.

Sam Perrin: I think they get good business for a lot of us. Although, again, I suppose we are just sending Jeff Bezos into space once again, I suppose. Yeah, we do, don't we?

Michelle: Unfortunately, yes. But no, honestly, it's such a fascinating topic and like I said at the start, there's so many different areas that you could look at this because it's so revealing for so many different things. And the fact that we're talking about it, I think is a really positive sign, like we mentioned. I think just being able to talk about how these things were carried out and conducted somehow makes it easier for to talk about death, dying burials today. And I think we can learn so much from the Victorians when it comes to attitudes around death. And like I said, I think it speaks so much to modern issues, actually, things that we should still be thinking about and concerned with. And I think people tend to think about how far we've come from the Victorians and how different, but we're really not. We are still very similar. We have the same types of grievances and problems and the same things playing out in society. And again, I think we can still learn from what they did and about them. Really.

Sam Perrin: Absolutely that. And again, I think this desire and more a sense of an open mind in discussing death, again, just leaping back to the beginning of the talk, I think you have things like the death cafes that are open and the opportunity to attend talks and lectures in cemeteries and wander around. And I think it definitely has taken us back to a place that we once were for hundreds, if not thousands of years, where people were a lot more comfortable with their relatives and a lot more accepting of their relatives and then them eventually passing on. And ashes to ashes, dust to dust. And I think it's good to bring us back to where we originally were because again, it's something we are all going to face at some point or another in our lives. That's the commonality of it, I think. I can't remember who said this, but death is the greatest leveler and regardless of your class or where you come from in the world or I don't know anything like that, it's the one thing that we all be faced with at some point. So to take us back to a state where people are a lot more accepting of it. I mean, let's put it this way, I used to work for the music industry many, many moons ago and without revealing names, I used to have a supervisor who at one point turned around and said to me, sam, I think your taking tours in cemeteries is very, very sinister. And I thought that was very telling because again it just demonstrated perhaps with her not directly saying it, but how uncomfortable the idea of going to a cemetery and being surrounded by the dead must have been for her. And I think it's something that's now being redressed with all of the talks and again deaf cafes, et cetera, et cetera. And I think it's a wonderful thing to come back to a stage where we once were for hundreds of thousands.

Michelle: Of years and also for these different locations, these different sites and organizations to then have that support from the public as well, to help them to continue to preserve and protect what they are safeguarding really. And again, I think it speaks volumes to how the community can give back to some of these locations and support the preservation of beautiful cemeteries. And like you mentioned this project about finding out about people who have received these burials where they really just don't have any kind of marker and their names have been obliterated. These types of things would not happen without public interest, without people attending, without support from the community, from different organizations. And that doesn't happen by osmosis. It happens because people are suddenly looking at this, they're looking at what's happening because they want something good to be done there. They want it to continue. And so again, I think there is huge value in cemetery tours, in going and looking after going and attending, seeing your local churchyards, seeing how you can support those go further afield. I think there is huge value in that. There's something very beautiful and again very connective in that I think.

Sam Perrin: Oh, I couldn't agree with you more. And a lot of the large cemeteries and churchyards now fortunately have friends organizations that have grouped together members of the public and people who have family members buried in such places where they've joined forces and are trying to protect such resources. Because cemeteries aren't just a place where people get buried. There's so much more than that. They are treasure troves of social history. Also places of great natural beauty. Just referring specifically to some of the larger, older Victorian cemeteries that perhaps have fallen to a state of neglect and disrepair. A lot of these actually happened in the when the cemetery companies that were originally running them actually ran out of money or collapsed or essentially folded. And so for a long time a lot of these places became gobbled up by nature. And it's something that, again, I also find quite beautiful is that in instances like this where a lot of cemeteries are now covered up in ivy and some of the American visitors that used to come on my tours were absolutely horrified thinking that how could you let a cemetery fall into such a state of disrepair? But unfortunately, nothing runs without money. And I think one of the beautiful things that we can take from some of these places now being considered wildlife sanctuaries or great natural resources is that there is a lot of life that now comes out of death in many of these cemeteries. Very rare species of insects and spiders and bats and foxes and a lot of natural wildlife now thrive in places that they in a place that they otherwise may not have done if it were absolutely immaculately maintained and was groomed frequently, et cetera, et cetera. So I think there is a lot to be said for that and it's a tricky balance to maintain for a lot of these friends organizations because do we restore it to its natural former glory or do we leave it as it is, as a sanctuary for wildlife to blossom and bloom? And I think also something that came out of the pandemic is that a lot more people began to explore cemeteries as being places of reflection and places to go and enjoy nature and be surrounded by trees and have some peace and quiet and actually get out while still maintaining the social distancing rules to get exercise and take air. And I think sort of a dichotomy in that people are actually getting life from going into a cemetery, if that makes any sense.

Michelle: But I think it makes you aware of life, of living, of what's ahead of you, doesn't it? It makes you much more acutely aware of your own existence and grateful, reflective, pensive. You feel all those different emotions, don't you? I think it would be unnatural if you didn't when you're partaking in the beauty of a cemetery. And I think you're right. I think it's something that people more and more have been stepping back into for different reasons. Be it the pandemic, be it there does seem to be this change in perspective and attitude around these types of locations and I think we've seen that over the last few decades. But, yeah, as I said, I think it's only a good thing. And one of the things that I will absolutely make sure to put out onto the show notes and on the website is details of how people can find you so that they can keep abreast of what you're doing. Because I know that you give many different talks, some of them online, that people can view, can take part in where they'll be able to enjoy some of these aspects, some of these discussions, and reflect on some of these things and other things that are part of what you share with the public, really.

Sam Perrin: Oh, thank you, I really appreciate that. And just to touch on something you mentioned a few moments ago that when I first started taking tours the majority of the questions were oh, don't you think it's weird to sort of work at a place like that? Or do you not find it spooky or scary? And one of the things that's come across over the years is I've seen people's attitudes change and start to appreciate not just the natural beauty but also the poignancy of looking at people who lost six children in a space of five or six years due to the horrendous mortality rates there. And I think it does make people very emotional and grateful for what they have. But I also think that in a large respect, I've seen a lot of attitudes definitely change towards that. And one of the things that comes across loud and clear is that in these places of memory, I think there's definitely a sense of and I mean, I do blame horror movies, actually, for perhaps putting a scary spin on cemeteries, but now all you have to do is walk through and read headstone after headstone. And the one thing that comes through loud and clear is this overwhelming sense of love towards the people that are buried there. It comes through time and time again, it can't be denied and that's what I hope people feel and experience when they go into visit a place such as a large garden cemetery or a parish churchyard. I hope people appreciate that feeling that all of the people who are buried there were loved very much.

Michelle: You have put it so beautifully.

Michelle: I think that is fundamentally what it.

Michelle: Is and again, there's nothing sinister in that. There's something very beautiful in that and when you are able to step into somewhere like that, I think you feel it. And I do think that's part of why people are so drawn to just wandering around looking at gravestones because you can't help but be touched by those personal elements. You can't help but notice the imagery on headstones, the touching snippets of information about that person's life, the poignancy that sometimes is revealed in terms. Of what was lost. I mean, it's just human connection, isn't it? And I think that's something we all very much strive for. I mean, I was only saying something like this to someone the other day. If we think about babies and how that facial recognition, that connection with another human being is something that you see very early, something that they're doing, I think we do the same thing. And I think we have that natural inclination to also want to connect with our past, because we strive for connection with where we've been, where we are, and where we're going. And there's something very unifying in that. And I think cemeteries can be that very beautiful place that allows you to do that.

Sam Perrin: Absolutely, I think that's perfectly put and in addition to everything you've mentioned, I think it also makes one appreciate life more. I don't want to sound negative about it, but you never know, you could be taken out tomorrow. So I think going to such a place I think also is very thought provoking in the respect of the time that you have left. Make the most of it.

Michelle: Yeah, absolutely. I think you are absolutely right. Honestly, it's been such a pleasure to talk to you Sam. You are so incredibly knowledgeable. And I honestly just wish that I could peruse through your computer for all these different articles and accounts that you found and the research that you've uncovered, because I just think it's a fascinating record of history, of the past, but from people of all different positions and walks of life. And, yeah, I think that's a fascinating thing to kind of be researching. I can understand why you would want to, to be honest, because it is so intriguing and fascinating. So thank you for kind of sharing some of that with us listening today.

Sam Perrin: Thank you so much for having me. Michelle, something that I've taken from actually talking to you is that it's been very thought provoking for me in the respect that certain articles that I read you whilst we were talking, I had a few sort of epiphany moments myself about certain things, and I've taken a lot from actually chatting to you, and it's been fantastic and I've really enjoyed it. Thank you so much for having me.

Michelle: You are welcome back anytime to talk, anything at all.

Sam Perrin: Thank you very much, I appreciate that and yeah, hopefully we shall cross paths again soon. I really appreciate your time and thank you to everybody who is listening to this now. I hope you've enjoyed it and yeah, enjoy the time you have folks. That's my parting message and like I.

Michelle: Said, I will make sure all of your details are on the show notes and on the website. So anybody listening, please check Sam out and yeah, follow for more of what she does really because I don't think you'll be disappointed. She posts regularly. Fantastic. Snippets I mean, not so long ago you tagged me on Twitter with that account, with the ghostly connection that I'm still scratching my head over. I still can't quite work out what that was potentially revealing or not revealing. So you are this treasure trove of fantastic nuggets of information. Really? With what you so, yeah, please, please check Sam out.

Michelle: You won't be disappointed.

Sam Perrin: Oh, thanks, Michelle. I appreciate that. And, yeah, it's been a pleasure being on.

Michelle: And I will say goodbye to everybody listening.

Michelle: Bye, everybody.

Sam Perrin: Cheerio all.