Father

Mickey, Cormac and Cathal Mac Connell at the funeral of their brother, Seán Mac Connell

When my father died
The professionals cried,
The undertaker and doctor.
Little more need be said
Of a man with a heart of gold
Locked in a tabernacle of arthritic bones
who could melt stones… with his words.
Who loved children and dogs.
Deep lakes and cotton covered bogs.
Ballads dropped from his lips
And a mercury brain generated
Quips worthy of the best.
For that he was.
The best.

Written by the former Agricultural Correspondent of The Irish Times Seán Mac Connell and read at his funeral. 

Source

Royal funeral

Not wanting to leave anything to chance, or to the event planning abilities of others, pioneering LGBT activist Jose Sarria laid out specific instructions for how his funeral would go down. His Imperial Court family — all those members of the organization that he founded when he named himself Empress I in 1965 — made it happen, and all arrived to Grace Cathedral today in San Francisco wearing their veils, crowns, and mourning garb, as requested.

More.

Let’s have a feedback frenzy

We don’t do feedback forms at the Good Funeral Awards. Whose eyes light up at the sight of a feedback form (groan)? But that doesn’t mean to say we don’t care like hell what you think. Please say.

First, there’s the business of the misnomer. The Good Funeral Awards is but one constituent part of what last year we called the Joy of Death Festival. The gathering ought to have an edgy, eyecatching name – there’s no future in hiding your light under a bushel. The title alluded to the Joy of Sex, of course, and carried the subtext: if you do it right (there are lots of ways), it’ll be really good. The media certainly perked up and took notice, and it landed two of the participants on BBC R4’s Saturday Live. When a catchy title and a wacky awards evening can gain that quality of audience for people who would otherwise remain unheard, then it can be said to be useful. If it takes a certain amount of ratlike cunning to achieve that – well, what is it they say about omelettes and eggs?  

Objections to the JoD name came mostly from within the industry, most vocally from someone we reckoned a major stakeholder in the event. So we dropped it and used the Awards title as an umbrella. We may need a new name that makes it clear that the weekend is not all about the bit in the evening. Ideas?

Any event that becomes formulaic and predictable is a bore before it’s even begun. So we’ll try to morph or even reinvent every time. Next year we probably need to spend less time sitting in a darkened room. Every talk this time was excellent and memorable, but the essential business of greeting old friends and making new ones inevitably meant that probably everyone missed at least one great session. There should have been more for Pia, who was on immediately after lunch. My conscience will never heal after missing Kristie.

We thought we might try something of a parliament next year, with motions proposed in no more than 3 mins, followed by debate and even a vote. Someone suggested a death book club, where people talk about their favourite bits of snuff lit. Like it? What else?

The awards ceremony itself is bound to inspire outbreaks of huff and incredulity. This is a generic problem common to all awards events – when did you last agree with the Oscars? On the plus side, it is glamorous; it offers a brilliant marketing opportunity to those nominated whether they win or not; and it is eyecatching to the media. It attempts to sing the praises of unsung heroes, and there is of course merit in that. The price is paid in hurt feelings, and I have never been happy with the aftermath. An awards ceremony can never do justice. We can’t just sit there while 348 people go up for each prize. The element of sudden death, winner takes all, is something people seem to like. The only time the judges get it right is when the winner is who you think it should be. But is the omelette worth the broken eggs?

The plusses of the weekend were countless and unarguable. They resulted from wonderful, serious minds coming together and talking. Strangers to Funeralworld thought they’d woken up in Heaven. The quality of those who came was stunning. The breadth was great, too: everyone from newbies to Ken and Paula; secular celebrants and Sandra Millar from the C of E; people from faraway places like Fife and Manchester; old school undertakers talking to ‘progressives’. And it’s not just a natterfest, it does a useful job of work in connecting people. As Noel Coward had it, ‘work is more fun than fun’.

And I think the rationale is a good one, too: An inclusive, unstuffy event, which attracts the liveliest minds in Funeralworld and the general public, and strives to be useful. No one has ownership of the event. It belongs to all who participate. Brian Jenner is our lead organiser and host. 

If we do the awards again, who do we invite? My favourite suggestion is Grayson Perry. Brian likes the idea of Richard Wilson.

Thank you for making it happen, Brian. Without you, zilch. 

Good Funeral Awards 2013 – the winners and the runners up

Most Promising New Funeral Director

Winner: Poppy Mardall

Runner-up: Stacey Bentley

Embalmer of the Year

Winner: Liz Davis

Runner-up: Angie Maclachlan.

The Eternal Slumber Award for Coffin Supplier of the Year

Winner: Yuli Somme

Runner-up: Roger Fowle.

Most Significant Contribution to the Understanding of Death

 Winner: Jean Francis

Runner-up: Pia Interlandi

Crematorium Attendant of the Year

Winner: Andy Barlow, Colwyn Bay crematorium.

Runner-up: Mandy Ryan and Martin McEvilly, Redditch crematorium

Best Internet Bereavement Resource

Winner: Jane Harris and Jimmy Edmonds for Say Their Name, a video made for the Compassionate Friends — http://beyondgoodbye.co.uk/?page_id=3918

Runner-up: Teresa Evans — http://evansaboveonline.co.uk/

The Blossom d’Amour Award For Funeral Floristry

Winner: Heather Gorringe

Runner-up: Donald Thornford

Funeral Celebrant of the Year

Winner: Barbara Millar

Runner-up: Lynne Watson

Cemetery of the Year

Winner: Rotherfield Greys

Runner-up: Sun Rising

Gravedigger of the Year

Winner: Stuart Goodacre from Horncastle, Lincolnshire.

Runner-up: Paul Rackham from Diss in Norfolk

Best Funeral Arranger

Winner: Dee Besley – Rosedale Funeral Home

Runner-up: Angela Bailey — Harrison Funeral Home

The Bereavement Register Funeral Director of the Year

Winner: John Harris — T Cribb & Sons

Runner-up David Summers — AW Lymn, The Family Funeral Service

GreenAcres Woodland Burials Green Funeral Director of the Year

Winner: Rosie Grant, Natural Endings

Association of Green Funeral Directors Greenest Funeral Director in the AGFD

Leverton & Sons

Lifetime Achievement Award

Winner: Paula Rainey Crofts

Runner-up: Josefine Speyer

This Good Funeral Awards ceremony constituted just one event in a weekend of countless highlights which brought together, in a spirit of amity and good felllowship,  more than 100 people of all sorts who work with the bereaved. More to follow. If you’d like to write about how it was for you, please send your copy to: charles@goodfuneralguide.co.uk

A HUGE thank you to Brian Jenner, without whose inspiration and tireless organisation the Good Funeral Awards weekend would be no more than a very good idea. 

Is Dawkins’s refusal to reassess Darwin a sign of unscientific denial?

By Richard Rawlinson

Richard Dawkins has said Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is ‘about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun’. He’s said that ‘understanding evolution led me to atheism’, and that he’s against religion because ‘it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world’.

Many agree: evolution is touted as a reason for disbelieving in divine creation and the eternity of the soul. Most theists also believe in evolutionary theory, and disagree that faith and science are irreconcilable. They disagree they’re blocked from trying to understanding the world on many diverse levels.

Dawkins isn’t very good at uncertainty. He’s a ‘my way or the highway’ kind of guy. I wonder what he thinks about the fact that his views are increasingly under fire—and not by religious people but by scientists questioning his discipleship to Darwin. A staggering 800 eminent scientists from Yale and Cambridge to the Russian Academy have so far signed up as Darwin dissenters, calmly and rationally skeptical about the Neo-Darwinist theory claiming that natural selection, acting on random mutations, is the primary mechanism for the development of the complexity of life. See here http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org

For decades, the media has regurgitated the scientific propaganda that only religious fundamentalists question Darwinian evolution. Clearly not so. And for decades, biology textbooks have been printing the illustrations of Darwinian Ernst Haekel, who distorted the differences between the embryos of worms, fish, birds, four-legged mammals and apes to imply man, like all species, stems from the same first cells emerging from primordial ooze.

This is far from the only time Darwin was propped up by less than scientific means. In order to prove Neanderthals were ancestral to humans, early 20thcentury paleontologist Charles Dawson announced he had discovered, in a gravel pit in Piltdown, the missing link that Darwinists needed. It was a skull which turned out to be a forgery, part human with the addition of an orangutan’s jaw, both chemically treated to make them look like a fossil.

Should educationalists stop propagating Darwin’s theory uncontested? His appeal seems to be that we desperately want to believe slime morphed into spineless worms, became aquatic skeletal creatures with eyes and fins, became amphibious creatures with legs and hair, and so forth. We want to believe Man is nothing more than an animal who happened to make himself supreme by creative brain power aided by manual dexterity.

It’s a theory that provides a neat answer to our deepest questions. But it’s science that’s evolved since the 19th century, and it’s both scientists and we the public who have remained reluctant to admit we may have got at least some of it wrong. Denial is now slowly changing to open receptiveness to possible new truths, even if the biggest truth of all is we still don’t know the answers. The Enlightenment is yet to come.

For an essay from an academic dissenter, see here.

 

Those whom Agni has tasted

3rd post in a series by Jenny Uzzell examining the question: What is a funeral for?

For those in Ancient India, it appears that funerals were vitally important, not only to the dead, but also to the smooth running of society. 

Most of our knowledge about this period comes from the Rg Veda, arguably one of the oldest sacred texts in existence. It is only in the final book of this (book 10) that clear reference is made to funerals and afterlife beliefs. At some point during the period over which the hymns in Book 10 were composed (or at least compiled) the practice of disposing of the dead changed from burial to cremation, probably as the result of a change in theology. 

Hymn 18 is the liturgy for a burial funeral of a young man. Premature death was often seen as a sign of the gods’ displeasure and was highly inauspicious. In the worst cases it could be seen as infectious and this is clear in this hymn, which seeks to make a boundary between the living and the dead which death cannot cross:

“Go hence, O death, pursue thy special pathway apart from that which the gods are wont to travel…touch not our offspring, injure not our heroes…here I erect this rampart for the living. Let none of these, none other reach this limit. May they survive a hundred lengthened autumns and may they bury Death beneath this mountain.”

This is clearly accompanied by the appropriate actions and serves to limit the god of death (Yama) in what he may do. Another purpose of this funeral is to purify the widow and return her, ritually, literally and, probably, emotionally to the land of the living:

‘Rise, come unto the world of life, O woman. He is lifeless by whose side thou liest. Wifehood with this thy husband was thy portion, who took thy hand and wooed thee as a lover. From his dead hand I take the bow he carried that it might be our power and might and glory. There art thou, there and here with noble heroes may we overcome all hosts that fight against us.”

The purpose of this funeral is not only to ensure the well being of the fallen hero (the hymn goes on to talk about the earth opening into a palace for him) but also to re-integrate the widow into society and to protect the mourners from the unlucky death. 

Hymn 16 is a cremation liturgy and shows the later theology of the afterworld. The god Agni (sacrificial fire) is the channel by which things from our world may reach the beyond. These could be food offerings or the dead themselves. Agni is addressed:

‘O Agni, to the Fathers send him who, offered in thee goes with our oblations.’

The dead were understood to have a physical body which purified and carried to the ancestors by fire was reunited with the spirit and dwelt with Yama. The Fathers were often invoked for help and so the importance of giving someone the ‘right send off’ was immense. Once in Pitriloka (the land of the fathers) the dead had to be sustained by food offerings from their kinfolk. 

All of this may be very interesting (well it is to me, anyway), but what relevance does it have to us? In the context of Hinduism, quite a lot.  Afterlife beliefs have changed and most Hindus now hope for re-incarnation or, better yet, for moksha or liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth. The fire is seen as a purification (very young children and holy men are likely to be buried) which allows the soul to leave the body and maybe even, if the correct rites are performed, to attain moksha. It is for this reason that many Hindus choose to travel to Varanasi on the banks of the Ganges to die, or seek to have their remains scattered into it or, failing that, into any other river. This is believed to facilitate Moksha, and so, for the next of kin the correct prayers performed at the right time, in the right place and with the correct rituals could make the difference between another rebirth and moksha. This then is the over-riding purpose of the funeral to which all others are subsumed. 

Hinduism is not the only place where this still applies. As was mentioned recently on this blog, Roman Catholics believe that for many a period of purification in Purgatory is required before entering heaven. This can be reduced by offering prayers of intercession for the dead and by offering mass for the repose of their soul. With this at stake, it is easy to see why the celebration of the life of the dead person often takes back seat. This is not excluded from Catholic practice (it is often done at the vigil for the dead before the funeral mass, or at a memorial service afterwards) but one of the purposes (there are, of course, others) is to make things better for the person who has died and this is the overriding concern. 

For most of us, regardless of whether or not we believe in life after death, what we do at the funeral makes no difference to the dead, so it is for the living that the funeral exists.  Where dispute arises (as has been the case recently with the Bishop of Meath restating the fact that there should be no eulogy at a funeral mass) it is often because people have not understood that the two sides have fundamentally different opinions about the purpose of a funeral and who it is for. 

Short shrift for the overreachers

You probably missed all this and, in truth, had you been aware, you might have either snorted derisively or, like me, mischievously hung on in there for a bit to see what happened next. I’ll tell you the story now. It’s about a bunch of funeral celebrants who went off on one and had to be smacked.

How is the public interest served by making public a silly and ignominious enterprise which did no more harm than cost a few people a few bob, an acre or two of time and a little local damage to their vanity?

The answer is that the bereaved are best served by people with good hearts, good minds and good judgement. Eyebrows have rightly been raised at the spectacle of what some would characterise as an incursion, recently, by funeral celebrants who are not only reckoned second-rate but, also, unhealthily mercenary — those who seem bent on putting the ‘sell’ into celebrancy. Narcissistic windbags intoxicated by the sound of their own voices, some would add. The GFG has, of course, been even-handed and defended those so disparaged.

At the beginning of the year a bunch of celebrants — I’ll spare their blushes by not naming them — took it into their heads that they had received some sort of a licence from the government to form a regulatory body for celebrants, which they called the Association of Regulated Celebrants (ARC):

“ARC has been setup to oversee and regulate the future activities of Celebrants working within the UK. ARC has been accepted by the Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, to ultimately become the regulatory body for the Celebrant industry … under the umbrella of ARC, we hope that we can ensure the high standards of working ethics of true professionals within our own organisations, and start to regulate the registration of all working celebrants and the standards of regulating the training of them within that same industry. There can only be one ‘agenda’ and that is working to the regulation of our celebrant industry to the benefits of everybody…. and every organisation benefiting by it.”

Yes, you have to read it twice. Yes, it makes you gasp. To adapt Mr Obama, it is the audacity of… ach, you fill in the missing word.

In response to an enquiry about the veracity of the claims made by the founders of ARC, an official at the Department for Business Innovation and Skills responded on 29 July 2013 as follows:

I have contacted the FOIC to ask about the claims you described and as a result they have taken them off their website. I have also received written assurance from the head of FOIC, who is also a director of the ARC, that these claims will not be repeated by either organisation. 

Not with a bang but a whimper, as the expression has it.

All celebrants are, to some degree, tainted by association with this escapade. How ‘good’ celebrants might respond is another matter. You may have an idea what that is. 

Alakaline hydrolysis – the facts

The ‘green cremation’ process known most widely in the UK as Resomation after the company of that name is more accurately termed alkaline hydrolysis. We were reminded of that recently by blog reader Jocelyne Monette, keen that we should get the history of alkaline hydrolysis right and give credit where credit is due. 

The Resomation process employs high temperature alkaline hydrolysis, and has a patent pending on its Resomator. The process is awaiting regulation by the Ministry of Justice and the Scottish Parliament. The company is 65 per cent owned by Co-operative Funeralcare. 

Over in the US, Joe Wilson has been working on alkaline hydrolysis for 35 years and, at his company Bio-Response Solutions, has developed low temperature and high temperature processes. Bio Response has a unit in Canada for humans in Prince Albert SK at Gray Funeral Homes – and Quebec is next in line with 2 human units. In the USA Bio Response has human units in Chicago (high pressure) and low pressure in Maine, Ohio, Oregon and several other states. 

Naturally, higher temperature systems use more energy to heat, and more water or energy to cool than do low temperature systems. A low temperature process takes longer, around 10 hours; the high temperature process developed by Resomation Ltd takes between 3-3 hours. 

If you’d like to know more, here’s a pdf sent to me by Jocelyne: History of Alkaline Hydrolysis

Good Funeral Awards 2013

The scene is set for the Good Funeral Awards 2013. It’s a sellout. All the nicest people will be there. There’s enough of us to have fun and not so many that we can’t get around everyone and have quality chats with likeminded people we never suspected existed. 

Our host is Pam St Clement — EastEnders’ Pat Butcher. No stranger to death, is our Pam. 

The forecast is… British seaside. Not to worry, it’s warm and dry indoors, and who cares when you’re talking death? 

Britain’s most unreasonable undertaker?

From an email sent to the GFG: 

Hi Charles

A friend told me about your website. She says you you like to hear about interesting funerals. Well wait till you hear about mine.

My mum died in hospital — long illness, merciful release and all that. My brother Stephen and I were determined she wasn’t going to go the way of dad and be swallowed up by the sort of undertaker who, you know, paralyses your brain with that voice they use and all that Carlson out of Downton crap, and serves up the sort of funeral that makes you think you could be at anybody’s. I rang around to see what I could suss. 

I decided to try out a chap called Geoffrey Hawkins. He sounded nice and normal on the phone, quite breezy in fact, and he didn’t tell me he was sorry for my loss, a big plus. When I went to see him – nice house – there was a notice on the door saying to go round the back. Turns out he’s an IT whizz, works from home, and just does a bit of undertaking on the side. Geoff was up a ladder fixing a climbing rose. He asked me to hold the ladder and tell him about mum. After a bit he came down and asked if I wanted a cup of tea. Or a beer. I said a beer would be nice, so we sat in the garden. I thought we’d sort out times and flowers and notices in the newspapers and a coffin for mum but instead he asked me how I wanted to feel when I got home after the funeral. He said a funeral has to justify all the time and expense by doing a job of work — it has to earn its keep. I said, It’s something you just do for christsakeHe said, Oh no it’s not, not unless there’s a good reason to. Then he set me what he called homework. Go home, talk to Stephen and anybody else, and write down what we thought was the point of having a funeral for mum and make a list of everything we reckoned we needed to do for her.

Next morning I was just about to ring him and call it all off when he rang me first to say he was going to collect mum from the hospital and was on his way to pick me up. I said, I thought that was your job. He said, She’s your mum, she’d like you and Stephen to be there for her. I said, Stephen’s had to go to work. He said, you’ll do.

I have to admit, though I was dreading it, something made me go through with it — something told me that Geoff, if certifiably mad, was somehow my kind of madman. Even though mum was in this awful body bag thing he was incredibly gentle with her. I talked to her on the way back and when we got there Geoff said well done. And he really meant it. I felt I was on a journey now and was determined to get to the end. I chose a nice wickerwork coffin for mum made by Roger Fowle. He handed me the phone and said ring him. Roger said to pop over and give him a hand if I wanted.

I asked Geoff about someone to take the service — perhaps one of those nice humanists, cos mum never went to church but she wasn’t exactly anti religion. He asked if I had made that list yet. I said not quite. He said, What’s the point of booking a humanist if you don’t know what you want to do? I reluctantly agreed we’d cross that bridge when Stephen and I had done our homework.

It went on like this. Every time I told Geoff that Stephen and I were too busy, S at work and me needing to get paperwork sorted, and the bank, etc, Geoff just said, Get your priorities sorted, the paperwork can wait, focus on mum and get some useful grieving done. He was that blunt, I always knew exactly where I was with the bugger. He said, When I ring you, that’s your priority.

He rang to say he was about to wash and dress mum, would I like to help him. I said no. He said to think about it. I said no. Then, before he could say another word I completely lost it and screamed at him to do his damn job and earn his bloody money and stop f*****g pressuring me, didn’t he understand how I was feeling? He rang back two hours later as if I hadn’t screamed at him at all to say that mum was dressed and looking lovely, but needed me to go and do her hair and nails. I went. It was some of the best time I have ever spent with her and I wished I had been there for everything, it was a totally beautiful experience that I can’t put into words. When I came out he was in the garden with a nice cold beer waiting for me. We did the paperwork for the crematorium then he said, You’ll need to pop a cheque in there and take it out to them. 

That’s when Stephen and I decided we didn’t need a humanist, we’d do it all ourselves thank you.

Geoff never let up. I told him we wanted a hearse for mum, a bit of pomp and circumstance. He said he’d got one, but Stephen and I would need to come and clean and polish it. Stephen was well pissed off about that, but I could feel there was some sort of logic somewhere. Stephen said to Geoff, I hope you’re going to dress up and walk in front of it. Geoff said you are going to walk in front of it, she’s not my mum, we need to talk about the procession.

We devised a plan — and here’s what we did. Geoff was insured for us to drive the hearse. Stephen and I picked mum up in the morning and drove her around some favourite places and spent this last precious time with her. Everyone coming to the funeral had been asked to wait just inside the gates for us to arrive. When we got there, I got out and walked in front of the hearse with mum’s grandchildren, Stephen drove, everyone else followed. It was only about 150 metres so even mum’s friends were able to cope. It felt really good. Geoff was waiting outside the crematorium and gave me a wink.

Suddenly I realised we had done nothing about about who was going to carry the coffin and I felt this surge of anger towards Geoff. He said ssh, there’s no problem, how did I want to do it? I said, Well, the usual way on people’s shoulders of course. He said fine, if you want to exclude women, children, disabled people, short people, very tall people. He was boringly right again. We all just grabbed a bit, all those closest to mum, grandkids and all and held on for dear life. It wasn’t a bit like the Thatcher funeral and there was some giggling – she would have loved it – but we got her on the caterplank or whatever it’s called. And there was this wonderful mood of togetherness and warmth among everyone. Geoff whispered to me, Nothing like a bit of creative chaos to break the ice, is there? and left us to it.

Charles, I could go on and on about how wonderful the funeral was but you haven’t got the time and I haven’t got the words yet. That’s all I can say just now. It was awesome.

Geoff’s bill was ridiculously small but, as he said, he’d done as little as he could get away with. He asked how I felt when I got home. I told him I poured myself a huge glass of wine, toasted mama in the skies and just felt GOOD. Mum ok with it? YES! He said, Are you proud? I said, YESSS! He said, Sorted, well done our kid. And he gave me a big hug.

Best regards,

Helen

PS I went and spent an afternoon with Roger making mum’s coffin. Roger rocks!