What a title, how could I resist! But it is a completely legit, albeit attention getting, title for this post. When we went on our graveyard tour this past week, at the end we viewed a family crypt owned by the W.L. Young Estate. A random tidbit of knowledge that I didn't know that our tour guide told us: a mausoleum is a fully enclosed aboveground burial building, (with subterranean levels of burial chambers too) while a crypt is an open burial building. You learn something new every day. So when you are on Jeopardy next and are asked: “A burial building that is open”:
you can answer: “What is a crypt, Alex”.
Unfortunately, there haven't been any relatives in the past few decades who have come forth to use the crypt, and it's falling into sad disrepair. It is reaching the point where it will be completely unsafe, and the city will not fix it, but tear it down unless they can find a family member to help defray the cost. Or, of course, a large donation from anyone would suffice as well.
That is the part I don't understand though, shouldn't it be the city's responsibility? I wish I had thought of this question on the tour. But I thought once plots (ground or above ground) were purchased by the family, that money went into a maintenance fund, to upkeep the cemetery. So why wouldn't this fall under that category? The mausoleum would be fixed…why not this? Is it like one big giant headstone, and maybe the owners responsibility?
So if you happen to know any Young's who fit the bill, ask them if they have a family crypt in Edmonton Cemetery. Ignore the date on the sign, they are still looking.
I want a family crypt. That's so wonderfully creepy.
And a few more pictures of the cemetery.