Scattering remains

[Farrar]

Without getting too specific... let's say someone specified specific places they'd like their remains scattered. If you scatter in those specific places, what do you think the... personal ethics are on scattering in additional places of your own choice? Does the fact that there are enough ashes to easily do that make a difference? Does the relationship with the deceased make a difference? As in, if it was a spouse whose wishes you had really discussed vs. a more distant relative?

[Tanaqui]

The deceased, by definition, aren't around to care anymore. So long as you're not scattering them somewhere illegal (check local laws) or deliberately offensive, I think you're ethically in the clear to add to their list provided you're already the person designated to handled this matter.

[Farrar]

Yeah, I should have said up front... no one on any side of this discussion is considering scattering anywhere that would be illegal or, let's just say, unusual. The deceased did not request anywhere unusual and the people who feel that more should be scattered elsewhere are not suggesting anywhere unusual or where it would be illegal to scatter.

[Farrar]

The Disney thing is fascinating to me. I mean, it sort of cracks me up that so many people are apparently into that. I'm not that grossed out by it, though I get that some people are.

[katilac]

It seems a bit rude, lol. 

[Farrar]

13 minutes ago, katilac said:

It seems a bit rude, lol. 

Scattering somewhere the deceased didn't request? Yeah, that's basically the crux of the two sides here.

[Spy Car]

I'd scatter the ashes anywhere requested unless I felt it was somehow immoral or unethical.

Bill

[marbel]

I wouldn't have any qualms about scattering ashes in a place not designated by the deceased unless (as has been said) the deceased had stated they did not want them scattered there. I don't see any problem with scattering in multiple places. 

My parents didn't give any instructions for their ashes. I finally found a place that took remains and scattered them over Niagara Falls.  At least, they said they did and that's what my siblings and I paid for. But honestly?  Since I just mailed the ashes to the place, they could have tossed them in a dumpster and sent me a fake picture of the scattering.  (My parents had been born and lived over half their lives near Niagara so it seemed appropriate.)

I don't believe that it matters to the deceased. I mean, I think people's wishes should be respected, but if they asked for something that turned out to be illegal or impossible, I would do the best I could to come as close as possible to their request, but I wouldn't do anything illegal or go to an expense that would hurt my living family.  (Like, traveling to a specific place that was far and expensive to get to, and would be a financial burden.) 

Edited August 22, 2019 by marbel

[DawnM]

I think it is ok, especially if you have a specific reason.  My aunt's ashes were separated into jars for people to take home AND put in an urn to be buried.  I don't have any of the ashes, but I wish I had gotten some now.  I think she would have been ok with it.

[Farrar]

Huh. It just made me feel profoundly uncomfortable when it was brought up. I was like, but the deceased wanted this. Shouldn't we not go above and beyond that? I don't think the world will end if it's done. The deceased isn't here to care. It just makes me feel wrong.

[catz]

48 minutes ago, Farrar said:

The Disney thing is fascinating to me. I mean, it sort of cracks me up that so many people are apparently into that. I'm not that grossed out by it, though I get that some people are.

I don't really get it either!?  Like there isn't all that much green space at Disney.   Maybe if you snuck in a tablespoon of ashes into a bush or something.  

My dad's ashes were spread at a park near a river.  He requested that though it wasn't in writing.  He died very suddenly.  But I think he would have been fine had we wanted to distribute some differently.

[Eos]

My very proper Quaker grandmother requested her ashes to be scattered in the Brandywine River in Pennsylvania rather than placed under her stone at the Meeting nearby.  We all thought it was too weird not to have any at her stone surrounded by her ancestors, so we snuck some under the headstone, sent some home with every descendant who wanted some and promised to work them into our gardens and then had a delightful scattering party in the river with tiny great-granddaughter, ancient sister (whose ashes now reside at the same Meeting and in the same river) and lots of daughters and grand-daughters wading in.  Did we fulfill her request?  Yes.  Did we improvise with loving and meaningful intention?  Also yes.  Be at peace, you will honor your deceased person with your intention wherever you scatter their earthly remains.

When you can use some humor on this: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/heavyweight/emhwel/6-james

I also know that if anyone in our family had objected to the improvised plan, it wouldn't have happened (because consensus.) So I do think that if you object, your other decision-makers should not insist.  Putting some at her gravestone gave us mourners a way to feel close to her when we visit.  

Edited August 22, 2019 by Harpymom

[katilac]

55 minutes ago, DawnM said:

 My aunt's ashes were separated into jars for people to take home AND put in an urn to be buried. 

I sometimes feel torn in too many directions in life, I don't want to feel that way in death! 😂

Also, I can't imagine having a small jar of my aunt in the house. Like, where do you put it? What do you do with it? Is it just kind of there, or do you you purposefully visit it like a grave? How do you keep the cats from knocking it over?

 

[Selkie]

47 minutes ago, Farrar said:

Huh. It just made me feel profoundly uncomfortable when it was brought up. I was like, but the deceased wanted this. Shouldn't we not go above and beyond that? I don't think the world will end if it's done. The deceased isn't here to care. It just makes me feel wrong.

This is how I would feel, too.

[Corraleno]

I don't know, the idea of dividing up a human being into lots of separate pieces and passing them around to people who will take each part to a different place seems weird and slightly creepy to me. Would people ever divide up a body like "Aunt Sally gets Dad's right leg, MeeMaw gets his left arm, each kid gets a hand or a foot, and Mom gets the head and torso"? To me, dividing up cremains is not much different from that. I mean, I realize it doesn't affect the dead person, and to a certain extent I agree that the living should do what makes them feel most comfortable because they're the ones who have to live with the loss, but it does seem somewhat disrespectful to me to parcel out someone's body like carving a turkey at Thanksgiving dinner. 

[HS Mom in NC]

I think the whole point of telling people what you want done with your remains to make sure that what you want done with your remains is actually done with your remains.  If not, why bother specifying at all? The same with death and mourning rituals.  I think people who struggle with boundaries might struggle with that idea. I do think that what you want done has to be very reasonable though.  You may want your remains at the top of the mountain, but that doesn't mean your loved ones can realistically get your ashes up the mountain without some sacrifice, and that's not reasonable.  If what the person wanted isn't realistic, then I think it's OK to do what works for the mourners as closely as can be done in the spirit of the deceased's wishes.

If it involves an attraction open to the public, keep some things in mind. My dad's first cousin owns the Goonie house.  She did once give a distraught visitor permission to scatter her son's ashes in the garden, but since then there have been scatterings in her garden without her permission. I don't know what the laws are about scattering at a private residence, but don't forget trespassing laws and laws about allowing vehicles to move through the streets and driveway access. When the 25th anniversary of the movie release came along so many people came to the house daily that the neighbors couldn't get to their properties because 1000 tourists a day were driving up to the house.

We have a friend with a medically fragile foster child who has severe respiratory issues.  Their next door neighbors had huge holiday displays people came for miles around to see.  Everyone in the neighborhood struggled to get in and out out of their driveways.  If they had needed to go to the hospital, which happened often, or an ambulance was needed, access was severely limited. That matters.

[Katy]

If this was a religious person I would absolutely not do something differently than requested.  Only because I once heard a pastor say that before cremation was so widespread due to increasing funeral costs, it used to be done as a religious statement.  Apparently some people think (or used to think) that if you scatter their ashes in multiple locations you'll just be dead when you die, that God won't be able to put your body back together at the resurrection.  And even though the pastor assured us this was ridiculous, if this person was aware of that history and hated that idea I wouldn't scatter anything.  Just out of respect for human dignity.

[Eos]

My guess is that people want a sense of control when they specify where their ashes will end up, which is a reasonable way to try to grapple with the ultimate loss of control.

[catz]

I personally can't imagine just holding onto ashes indefinitely myself.  But hey if that is comforting to someone, I don't have a problem with someone else choosing that.  This situation is very condition based to me.  I don't think like some random 3rd cousin that is rarely seen should wander up and demand a jar of ashes from a grieving widow.  But if someone's nearest and dearest has a respectful request for some ashes, I guess I don't see a huge issue.  But I do think someone like a widow or widower should be able to decline too.  If someone took the time to have very clear written instructions and an executor, well, I would certainly hope everyone would be on board following those requests.  So many people do not have their preferences written down that clearly though.  

I guess if I were involved, I'd primarily want to not make it a source of conflict.  

My parents are Catholic and my mom told a white lie to a priest to be able to spread his ashes.  So sometimes someone's religion doesn't align exactly with their own belief system either.  

[Janeway]

The living have an obligation to follow the wishes of the deceased when it comes to burial/cremation/etc. Unless the deceased made it clear that they did not care what happened to the remains but here are some suggestions, then the person should be disposed of as instructed. Otherwise, how far do people go in doing whatever they want because they are the living ones? Someone stuck a crucifix in my mom's casket even though she is not Catholic. Someone else said it did not matter, she was dead, she did not know. I think it was very disrespectful. She also was not buried where she wanted to be. She wanted to be in the same cemetery as her parents. Nope. People overruled that too. Just wrong. 

[hjffkj]

Well I wouldn't follow the wishes of a deceased person if they put me in charge of scattering their ashes because it goes against my beliefs. So, I guess I lean on the side that it doesn't matter all the much anyway because the person is gone.

Edited August 22, 2019 by hjffkj

[happi duck]

I wanted to honor my dad's wishes and was overruled.  I think wishes should be respected when possible.

[kbutton]

I think that "extra places" doesn't seem like a big step to me, but I would err on the side of doing what was requested. If they had requested one specific place, I would assume they wanted all of their ashes in the same place. So, if you think that additional scattering sites are not okay, then I think people should defer to that as you are definitely following wishes. But I also think that adding additional sites would not violate something implied that rises to the level of "I don't want my ashes divided" because they've already specified multiple sites.

None of my preferences have anything specific to do with my religious beliefs--I'm just fairly traditional (cremation is on the table as a nod to the price of burials--I would prefer to not be cremated, actually, but unless someone could do a very inexpensive burial, cremation is fine). IIRC, some church's teachings do require burial of cremated remains--my grandmother was Catholic, and her cremated remains were buried, and it was a big deal at the time.

I am not sure I'd care if someone put mementos of their own in my casket, but if it was something that violated my beliefs (or is superstitious), I think it's rude. 

 

[Farrar]

These are interesting perspectives, thanks.

My mother went on a good bit about how she could do whatever she wanted with this relative's remains, assuming some were scattered where requested. When I was like, this makes me very uncomfortable because I know this is what relative requested for these remains, she got very mad at me. I was like, look, I just need to express that it makes me uncomfortable not to honor relative's wishes when we could easily do so and I don't think this is what we should do. But you're the one in charge of these remains and I respect that.

So she angry texted and called me all night and then sent a passive aggressive email putting ME in charge out of nowhere, which requires that I communicate with some people I've never met. This may be a totally separate issue, of course. Sigh.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Farrar

[Shoeless]

Oh wow.  That's a big load your mother dumped on you, @Farrar.  For what it's worth, I don't think you are wrong.  Relative said "Do this with my remains".  If they wanted the remains divided among different places/relatives, I think they would have probably said that?  

 

I feel like sometimes people pull shenanigans like this  in an attempt to rewrite some part of history after a person has died.  They got the last word, so ha ha! They win.  That sort of thing. 😕 

 

[Corraleno]

2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

I do think of it as a different thing.

FIL has been passed for 2+ yrs, and MIL nearly 10+.  Yet, SIL keeps the box of their cremains on her dresser.  No one would keep an actual deceased body on their dresser for nearly 10+ years.  But to me, trying to equalize dividing up ashes to the same as dividing up body parts is like trying to equate keeping body parts on a dresser to keeping ashes on a dresser.  

I was the guardian and executor for an elderly relative that passed away a little over a year ago, and I am keeping his ashes until I can take them to his sister in the UK next year. In the meantime, they are in my bedroom and I actually do feel like there is a dead body on my dresser. I mean that's what it is — a dead body that had all the flesh burnt off and then the skeleton was ground up. A ground-up skeleton in a box on top of a dresser is not that much different from an articulated skeleton sitting in a chair next to a dresser; it's just a more compact version of the same thing. So, to me, giving a cup of ground-up Bob to Aunt Sally and a cup to MeeMaw and half a cup each to the 4 kids, and 2 cups of ground-up bones to Mom, etc. is not conceptually different from giving one person a femur, one gets a radius, each kid gets a handful of hand and foot bones, Mom gets the skull and ribs, etc. The idea of not keeping the parts of a person's body together, but rather handing out "baggies full of Bob" as souvenirs to multiple relatives just seems really weird to me, and somewhat disrespectful to the dead.

[frogger]

35 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I was the guardian and executor for an elderly relative that passed away a little over a year ago, and I am keeping his ashes until I can take them to his sister in the UK next year. In the meantime, they are in my bedroom and I actually do feel like there is a dead body on my dresser. I mean that's what it is — a dead body that had all the flesh burnt off and then the skeleton was ground up. A ground-up skeleton in a box on top of a dresser is not that much different from an articulated skeleton sitting in a chair next to a dresser; it's just a more compact version of the same thing. So, to me, giving a cup of ground-up Bob to Aunt Sally and a cup to MeeMaw and half a cup each to the 4 kids, and 2 cups of ground-up bones to Mom, etc. is not conceptually different from giving one person a femur, one gets a radius, each kid gets a handful of hand and foot bones, Mom gets the skull and ribs, etc. The idea of not keeping the parts of a person's body together, but rather handing out "baggies full of Bob" as souvenirs to multiple relatives just seems really weird to me, and somewhat disrespectful to the dead.

 

I have to say this is how I feel. Not saying other people's traditions are just outright wrong, it just seems strange to me.

 

My Grandmother kept my Grandfather's urn next to her. She died a little over a year after he did with no real ailment but they had been married over 60 years and their ashes were mixed and buried together. Pretty sure his death was the begining of hers so that feels different than parceling someone out. Grandpa wouldn't have cared if he thought it comforted Grandma. It's hard for me to feel anyone outside of that close of relationship has any right to someone else's ashes. 

 

I'm sorry Farrar that you are put in such an uncomfortable position.

 

 

 

I have to add I find it very strange that people want scattered at very public places like Disneyland. Most of my family has been scattered on favorite mountains overlooking their homes or remote favorite properties. I forget the rest of the country doesn't have as many of those types of places.

Edited August 22, 2019 by frogger
Typo

[klmama]

As I see it, a specific request should be honored, if at all possible.  If no specific request, then the person in charge of the cremains gets to decide what would be most appropriate. 

My elderly neighbor was put in charge of his friend's ashes.  His friend had no relatives and had asked my neighbor to scatter them, but without giving any specifics.  The neighbor kept them for a couple of years before deciding that his own backyard was as good a place as any.  He scattered them around a small evergreen tree of his that hadn't grown well.  Lo and behold, after that, the tree grew and grew.  It was a nice tribute to the friend.  The neighbor is gone now, too, but I still think of him every time I see the tree.

 

[Chris in VA]

I have several relatives that were cremated and scattered /buried in multiple places. I don't know if specifying where you want your ashes put excludes some of them  being put some place else. 

I agree with the previous poster who said people making their own funeral arrangements seems about controlling the ultimate  uncontrollable circumstance, and the continuing living deciding   differently  seems about the ways we grieve.

So I guess I would ask, does the extra scattering bring a measure of comfort to the living, and if so, would the dead want that comfort wrought?

Edited August 22, 2019 by Chris in VA

[CAJinBE]

I'm sorry you have been put in this position. To answer your question, I think the cremains should be scattered only where specifically requested. Based on this discussion, if I decide to be cremated, I will specify that the cremains be buried intact. I don't like the idea of being partitioned off at all and I certainly don't want to be a mantle decoration. If people routinely keep urns of their deceased loved ones, do these then get passed down to the next generations? I was raised Catholic so I was taught that cremation was wrong, but I think the church has changed its teaching to allow cremation as long as the cremains are kept together. 

[marbel]

11 minutes ago, CAJinBE said:

I'm sorry you have been put in this position. To answer your question, I think the cremains should be scattered only where specifically requested. Based on this discussion, if I decide to be cremated, I will specify that the cremains be buried intact. I don't like the idea of being partitioned off at all and I certainly don't want to be a mantle decoration. If people routinely keep urns of their deceased loved ones, do these then get passed down to the next generations? I was raised Catholic so I was taught that cremation was wrong, but I think the church has changed its teaching to allow cremation as long as the cremains are kept together. 

This was what finally got my siblings to agree with what to do with my parents' ashes. I had them, mingled in one urn which was my mother's request.  I had them for years while siblings dithered about what do to with them, with the favorite plan being to leave me in charge of them forever. I finally said that I was not burdening my kids with their grandparents' cremains and would be shipping them to one or the other sibling within the next week if we didn't come to a decision.  Suddenly the scattering was approved.

[unsinkable]

53 minutes ago, CAJinBE said:

I'm sorry you have been put in this position. To answer your question, I think the cremains should be scattered only where specifically requested. Based on this discussion, if I decide to be cremated, I will specify that the cremains be buried intact. I don't like the idea of being partitioned off at all and I certainly don't want to be a mantle decoration. If people routinely keep urns of their deceased loved ones, do these then get passed down to the next generations? I was raised Catholic so I was taught that cremation was wrong, but I think the church has changed its teaching to allow cremation as long as the cremains are kept together. 

 

according to RC teaching, there is more than the cremains have to be kept together. They need to be buried or entombed. They should not be scattered or kept in a container at someone's home, etc...And if possible, the burial or tomb should have the name of the deceased.

[marbel]

19 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

 

Great points above by marbel and CAJ. Editing my letter of intent to include that my remains are to be interred intact, in one location. I cannot imagine any of the kids thinking they’d want to keep any, or want to do anything other than follow my simple (easiest thing for them) instructions.

I have enough trouble dealing with hand downs *from* the elder generation. I don’t want any of them to *be* a hand down! 

And I definitely don’t want my kids to fight over who has to host an urn in perpetuity. That’s not the kind of legacy I hope to leave!

Just a comment re: the bolded. We had also talked about burying the remains but could not decide where. One sibling wanted them in my parents' hometown, but no one lives there anymore. Even getting the 3 of us there to have a ceremony would have been nigh impossible, forget about regular visits to leave flowers or whatever.  None of us could guarantee that we'd never move away, and one siblings was adamant that they not be "left alone."  So even that can be a sticking point. Of course not everyone has siblings like mine.  🙂 

ETA my posts might sound like I felt nonchalant or disrespectful toward my parents' remains. (One sibling certainly thought so and maybe strangers will read it that way.) I was not. But I knew that ultimately what happened to those remains was not really important.  I believe that God can knit them back together when it is time. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by marbel

[Farrar]

These cremains have already been portioned, for the record. At the request of the deceased. They were divided to be scattered in three places of the deceased's choosing. So the deceased clearly didn't have any qualms about partition per se.

I don't have any qualms about anything mentioned above myself. Like, if someone wants to be scattered, interred, set on a mantle, set on everyone's mantle, scattered in a million places, kept all in one place... it all seems good to me. I guess my primary thing is that I think we should abide by the wishes of the deceased as closely as logistically and legally possible. Obviously, the deceased isn't here to care. That's just what my own moral compass says is right. But I guess I can see that others have a different take, and that doesn't strike me as immoral necessarily, just a different take.

[kbutton]

14 hours ago, Farrar said:

These are interesting perspectives, thanks.

My mother went on a good bit about how she could do whatever she wanted with this relative's remains, assuming some were scattered where requested. When I was like, this makes me very uncomfortable because I know this is what relative requested for these remains, she got very mad at me. I was like, look, I just need to express that it makes me uncomfortable not to honor relative's wishes when we could easily do so and I don't think this is what we should do. But you're the one in charge of these remains and I respect that.

So she angry texted and called me all night and then sent a passive aggressive email putting ME in charge out of nowhere, which requires that I communicate with some people I've never met. This may be a totally separate issue, of course. Sigh.

I am so sorry.

I am with you on this one. There is a big difference between, "Hey, could we add this site to the scattering because xyz" and "I can do whatever I want." Yikes. 

I hope that your communication with these people goes well if this is truly on your plate now (sounds like it could be something your mom might take back in an equally angry outburst). At least you have the wishes of your relative to go on. Wow.

[HS Mom in NC]

15 hours ago, Farrar said:

These are interesting perspectives, thanks.

My mother went on a good bit about how she could do whatever she wanted with this relative's remains, assuming some were scattered where requested. When I was like, this makes me very uncomfortable because I know this is what relative requested for these remains, she got very mad at me. I was like, look, I just need to express that it makes me uncomfortable not to honor relative's wishes when we could easily do so and I don't think this is what we should do. But you're the one in charge of these remains and I respect that.

So she angry texted and called me all night and then sent a passive aggressive email putting ME in charge out of nowhere, which requires that I communicate with some people I've never met. This may be a totally separate issue, of course. Sigh.

So which of your mother's stated/written instructions to handle her own  possessions (including her remains) is she OK with her executor ignoring? Some of it?  All of it?  This but not that?  Why have anything at all specified if she won't be around to deal with it anyway?

[Farrar]

22 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

So which of your mother's stated/written instructions to handle her own  possessions (including her remains) is she OK with her executor ignoring? Some of it?  All of it?  This but not that?  Why have anything at all specified if she won't be around to deal with it anyway?

She specifically stated that she was okay with us doing similarly with her cremains as one of her arguments.

I genuinely have mixed feelings. I felt compelled to object because it felt like it was a conscience thing for me. But I also was not as close to this relative and don’t feel it should be up to me. And I can see the other side. But rather than being like, I hear your objections but this is why I’m doing it this way, she just couldn’t let it go. I genuinely stopped responding. But eventually in her long train of angry texts and calls she sent the message saying I’m now in charge. Uhhhggg.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Farrar

[HS Mom in NC]

27 minutes ago, Farrar said:

She specifically stated that she was okay with us doing similarly with her cremains as one of her arguments.

 

But that's a nonsensical response.  Telling someone you're OK with them doing something with your remains is the opposite of doing something different than what someone told people to do with their remains. 

[TravelingChris]

3 hours ago, Farrar said:

These cremains have already been portioned, for the record. At the request of the deceased. They were divided to be scattered in three places of the deceased's choosing. So the deceased clearly didn't have any qualms about partition per se.

I don't have any qualms about anything mentioned above myself. Like, if someone wants to be scattered, interred, set on a mantle, set on everyone's mantle, scattered in a million places, kept all in one place... it all seems good to me. I guess my primary thing is that I think we should abide by the wishes of the deceased as closely as logistically and legally possible. Obviously, the deceased isn't here to care. That's just what my own moral compass says is right. But I guess I can see that others have a different take, and that doesn't strike me as immoral necessarily, just a different take.

I agree.  And I am really sorry that you have people fighting over this.

[Farrar]

Just now, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

But that's a nonsensical response.  Telling someone you're OK with them doing something with your remains is the opposite of doing something different than what someone told people to do with their remains. 

Oh, I agree. All of her arguments weren't logical to me. There's plenty. Okay, what does that have to do with it? She did the same for another relative. Okay, but you were specifically told by that relative it was okay, so that doesn't apply. 

Honestly, if she hadn't felt the need to sway me to her view, I think none of this needed to happen. Like, I was fine to give a quiet objection and then let it go. It's not on me. But she just kept arguing. Even when I wasn't responding.

[moonflower]

Unless you know that the person wouldn't have cared about the additional places, I think it's really really disrespectful and unkind and kidn of beyond the bounds of reasonable behavior.  It's not like if someone says hey, please serve cheesecake and fried fish at my funeral and you add a green salad and some dinner rolls.  It's more like if someone says, please have a Catholic ceremony (I'm not religious, so I'm making this up) and you have a Catholic ceremony and then add a Protestant ceremony at the graveside, or something.

Just no.  Very no.

[moonflower]

3 hours ago, Farrar said:

These cremains have already been portioned, for the record. At the request of the deceased. They were divided to be scattered in three places of the deceased's choosing. So the deceased clearly didn't have any qualms about partition per se.

I don't have any qualms about anything mentioned above myself. Like, if someone wants to be scattered, interred, set on a mantle, set on everyone's mantle, scattered in a million places, kept all in one place... it all seems good to me. I guess my primary thing is that I think we should abide by the wishes of the deceased as closely as logistically and legally possible. Obviously, the deceased isn't here to care. That's just what my own moral compass says is right. But I guess I can see that others have a different take, and that doesn't strike me as immoral necessarily, just a different take.

 

I think it's immoral to agree to do something for someone after they're dead and then do something else because you prefer it.  Just because they won't be around to know about it doesn't make it okay.

[Farrar]

36 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Would the deceased have objected to having the ashes scattered in the places the others want?  

Not sure. I don't want to pretend to know this person's heart beyond the stated wishes.

[Farrar]

23 minutes ago, moonflower said:

Unless you know that the person wouldn't have cared about the additional places, I think it's really really disrespectful and unkind and kidn of beyond the bounds of reasonable behavior.  It's not like if someone says hey, please serve cheesecake and fried fish at my funeral and you add a green salad and some dinner rolls.  It's more like if someone says, please have a Catholic ceremony (I'm not religious, so I'm making this up) and you have a Catholic ceremony and then add a Protestant ceremony at the graveside, or something.

Just no.  Very no.

That was my initial gut reaction. I see that a lot of people in the thread felt differently and I can get that. It's helped me soften my initial response. But this is basically how it felt to me.

[Farrar]

32 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

hmm..

I am thinking about coming at this as if this were my grandmother or grandfather who passed.  I am close-ish with my parents, but obviously my mom and her siblings are closer.  If my grandmother stated some wishes in her will, and my mom and her siblings wanted to do something in addition to whatever she specified, I can say that my grandmother probably would not have liked that.  However, if it were my grandfather, I know he wouldn't actually have cared.  My grandmother has a pretty stubborn personality and if she went to the trouble of writing it down, she would really want those wishes followed.  However, my grandpa is an extremely laid back person and if he wrote a wish down it would be more like a suggestion.  More like 'it would be nice to do X, but if you prefer Y, that's ok too.' (and that personality difference is probably how they have stayed married for 7 decades lol.)  

Were you close with the person or is there perhaps a person who is closer who can give you advice on what this person might have thought about such a situation, or what their personality might have been like?

My guess is that the deceased wouldn't have minded. My mother was closer to this person than myself and obviously she thinks it's fine. I just don't think it's my place to question. They asked for x. It's in our power to do x. I don't feel we have a right to add y and z. I don't feel like it's the end of the world though. And I certainly don't think it's appropriate that I'm somehow in charge now. All I really wanted was to voice my concern that it wasn't okay to add y and z to the person's wishes for their remains just because it's meaningful to her. A lot of people in this thread seemed to think that actually it was okay. So... I don't know. But I definitely don't think my view is surprising or inappropriate either. I needed to say it and have it heard. That was the main thing. And now I'm the one with the moral quandary for it. Sigh.

[Farrar]

31 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Hmmmm....ok...

If your mother was closer, perhaps her overraction (and I do feel that, based on what you posted, she has overreacted to your comments) is in part being driven by her emotions over the loss of the person.  

I will also say that, I know that within my own family, I trust that my mother wouldn't do anything to try to intentionally disrespect the final wishes of her mother, father, or any other relative.  I know that there are people in the world who are generally rude, disrespectful and would obviously care more about their own wishes than those of someone who has passed, even if the deceased was close to them.  Only you could know if your mom is that sort of person.  But, because I know that my mother is not that sort of person, I probably wouldn't have said anything at all to my mom in this sort of situation.  To me, that would feel like I am trying to tell my mom that I know more about the person's wishes even though I acknowledge that mom was closer.

 

But then, I tend to feel that these sorts of ceremonies and final resting situations and so on are all more for the living than the dead anyway.  

I never felt that she was being intentional disrespectful at all and tried to make that clear to her. Her reaction is definitely being driven by emotion.

[Farrar]

49 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Losing someone close to you is always so hard.

 

In your initial post, you asked if the relationship to the deceased makes a difference.  I think that yes, it does.  I think that, given that you don't think your mom is trying to be disrespectful to the deceased and given that your mom had a closer relationship...............I think deferring to your mom is the way to go here.  I love my dad, and if he passed before my mom and my mom wanted to do something with his ashes in addition to whatever dad had in his will, I would presume my mom, who has been married to him for nearly 45 yrs, probably knows more about his wishes and what would or would not offend him than I would know.

(now again, just for the sake of everyone reading...this is of course presuming functional family relationships, respect all around, no history of abuse or manipulation and so on.  Every post the OP has made indicates to me that this is not the case for her family.  In other families where people are, well, buttholes to each other, my thoughts would be different.)

I would love to defer to her. In fact, in stating my objection, I repeatedly affirmed that she was the one who had the final decision. I explicitly tried to end the discussion at multiple points after I voiced my viewpoint. You have to understand. I said my piece in like two different texts. And then I said it was really up to her and that I respected that. And then she sent me a barrage of angry texts for several hours, called me over and over (I knew better than to answer) and then sent out the passive aggressive emails. Maybe I'll be allowed to defer to her when we go to do this. And maybe not. I'm just hoping to avoid a really, really bad family vacation in less than two weeks.

[cjzimmer1]

3 hours ago, moonflower said:

 

I think it's immoral to agree to do something for someone after they're dead and then do something else because you prefer it.  Just because they won't be around to know about it doesn't make it okay.

Well my 90+ grandmother has spent most of her adult life insisting she would be buried in a very revealing lace negligee.  She also wanted a church funeral.  No amount of discussion would change her mind.  She had purchased it when she was around 50 and everyone who knew her, knew that her wishes were to be buried in that.  However, some of the family members were very uncomfortable with the idea of her laying with an open casket (her wishes) in that particular clothing item in a church.  So yeah, we overrode her wishes. Well we kind of compromised.  She had the negligee on but we put a nice suit over it.  You may disagree with me, but sometimes I think it's okay to agree to agree with something to keep the peace but change it afterwards.

[Katy]

1 hour ago, Farrar said:

I would love to defer to her. In fact, in stating my objection, I repeatedly affirmed that she was the one who had the final decision. I explicitly tried to end the discussion at multiple points after I voiced my viewpoint. You have to understand. I said my piece in like two different texts. And then I said it was really up to her and that I respected that. And then she sent me a barrage of angry texts for several hours, called me over and over (I knew better than to answer) and then sent out the passive aggressive emails. Maybe I'll be allowed to defer to her when we go to do this. And maybe not. I'm just hoping to avoid a really, really bad family vacation in less than two weeks.

 

I'll say a prayer that her stance softens.  She sounds a lot like my mother.  I would not expect a good vacation.

[Farrar]

15 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

I'll say a prayer that her stance softens.  She sounds a lot like my mother.  I would not expect a good vacation.

She's a bit mercurial. We actually usually have a very good time when we see her. And she can be wonderful in many ways. Like, I know there are people on this board who have truly difficult relationships with their mothers. She's nowhere near as bad as some of these tales. But... she can also go ballistic over nothing. And she seems to thrive on drama. That's always been a bit true and it's gotten a bit worse with age. She respects dh and probably won't misbehave around him, so that helps.