When people arrange a funeral, it is interesting to consider what influences them. It is easy to imagine that people choose natural burial because they care about the environment, but that is not the only reason. For instance, I was always surprised at the number of people who told me they disliked conventional cemeteries. That was often because, as children, they were forced to visit graves at weekends, either to place flowers or to cut the grass. Others simply disliked the serried rows of identical headstones and repetitive inscriptions.
There were also those opposed to cremation because they had a vision of the body of the deceased being destroyed completely. That was too much for them. There were many who felt that cremation services had become rather routine. Even though I explained that they could personalise the funeral service, they remained unconvinced. They felt people expected a certain kind of funeral and they did not feel capable of changing that. Consequently, a new kind of funeral, such as natural burial, which was not surrounded by expectations, gave them far more leeway.
The expectations, typical with a cremation, is that the purchase of a memorial will follow. Indeed, relatives of the deceased might expect this as a given, perhaps even push for it. That throwaway comment that there is nothing to see if relatives or friends subsequently visit, carry a lot of weight. It is easy to create guilt in a widow or widower in such circumstances. The fact that memorials can be expensive, especially after the high cost of the funeral, is a further pressure. Neither is it easy to ignore a memorial at many crematoria when the memorial schemes are in your face when you visit. Marketing literature, such as a brochure, will typically arrive in the post after the cremation. Cremation memorials also need to be renewed after perhaps 10 years, so the expense continues. Likewise, most people would expect a headstone to be erected on a conventional lawn-type grave. The fact that it is both expensive and carries a high carbon footprint does not help. I have also spoken to many couples in conflict about a headstone for a deceased parent. Typically, the one wanted a memorial, and the other was implacably opposed.
Consequently, it is easy to imagine that natural burial, entirely separate to its environmental objectives, avoids some of these issues. Firstly, that it is a novel type of funeral and, secondly, that further expense, on a memorial, will neither be necessary nor, indeed, welcomed by the site owner. The marketing pressure for you to buy a memorial will not exist. This pragmatic approach suited me because I don’t see death quite as most people; how could I after being involved with over 100,000 funerals? I spent millions of council money making old cemetery memorials safe. Although the ongoing maintenance of a memorial is the family’s responsibility, within a couple of decades this is often ignored.
I also think that few realise that the very presence of memorials, whether in a cemetery or crematorium, is a social pressure. The bereaved are expected to conform by erecting one for the person who has died. For me, the memorial is a vanity. It is an expensive, cumbersome, and absurd way of commemorating a person for a mere handful of years.
Having opened the world’s first natural burial scheme, my life changed. With over 30 years’ experience of unexciting and drab funerals, it was like a breath of fresh air. The people I met who loved birds, bees, trees or wildflowers, were a colourful and exciting group. They embraced nature and were happy to see less grass cutting and more wild nature. They were into mindfulness 30 years ago, long before it became a fad. I always enjoyed meeting them, very much the ones who knew what they wanted. This kind of person, most typically a woman, created their own death rituals. They were not happy to follow the crowd and often that meant dispensing with traditions. From that moment on, funeral services throughout the country have changed beyond recognition. The funeral celebrant, so often a woman, have put so much colour and joy into funeral services.
Typically, those arranging a natural burial had recognised the impending death and discussed it. Usually, the partner who was dying had made some powerful observations. One was that they wanted to be returned to nature and then left to it; why were subsequent visits necessary and if they were not, what is the point in a memorial. Also, they saw the natural burial grave as a memorial, that it was creating life from death. Perhaps they also wanted to dissuade their surviving partner from grieving excessively at the graveside. The notion that love can only be expressed by excessive visiting is not one that other people share.
There is always a danger in expressing views about grieving. When a death has occurred suddenly then it is rare that the possibility of death had been discussed. In addition, none of us can dictate what survivors should do or feel after our death. That is their prerogative alone. For some, I have seen that a conventional memorial is perhaps the closure of the death, the final stage.
However, what I saw in many of those people who objected to memorials and chose natural burial, was a new approach. Many of them were placing a memorial in a different way, such as placing a stile on a footpath, or a memorial seat in the village. Others were doing something in the community that related to the work or interests of the person who died. In other words, the memorial had to be functional. Whatever, that was probably driven by a discussion about death at some stage, a will being completed, and Lasting Powers of Attorney being prepared. Death should always be anticipated as we all must prepared for the inevitable.
Article by Ken West
Stonehenge Pensioner
Resident Author
