A picture of Robin Cook’s headstone has been published today bearing his immortal words: “I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war”.
It naturally mentions his wife Gaynor and two sons. I wonder why it could not have said: “Beloved husband of Gaynor and Margaret“, why ignore his first wife’s existence when they were married for 28 years and she was his anchor while he established a high profile political career, as well as being the mother of his two sons?
Do you remember how she was unceremoniously dumped by him at the airport after Alastair Campbell infamously told Cook to choose between his wife and lover as a tabloid was going to splash on his affair?
Not surprisingly, it led to an acrimonious break, but Margaret is reported to have since reached a rapprochement with her former rival.
I’m sure you can’t ever forget 28 years of marriage, do you feel Margaret’s name should have been included on the tombstone? Perhaps it could have said: “Beloved husband of Gaynor and former husband of Margaret“. Does that make sense to you? Does it ever happen for ex-spouses, or are they totally obliterated when those final words are cut in stone for eternity?
Hello again Ellee (I’m just back from a trip to Spain).
Tricky one this. Of course you can’t forget 28 years of marriage (I had 30 before I was kicked out) but life moves on. Presumably there is a protocol for this sort of thing?
I bit different in France where I think mistresses are “acceptable” I believe.
Jim, Great to hear from you again. Yes, life moves on, but I would regard this as recognition for those years together. They were both wives too, I do not think lovers would get a mention in the UK. It is obviously a very personal choice, I thought it would be an interesting subject to discuss.
I agree it’s a tricky one. No one can tell what really went on in someone else’s marriage or relationships.
On balance, there probably should have been a reference to Cook’s ex-wife. Then again, the break-up was a particularly nasty one, with a great deal of bad blood flowing between the two. Whatever his marital failings, Cook was right on Iraq.Credit where credit’s due.
By the way, and forgive the digression, have you seen this BBC report- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/6244013.stm – about Robin Page, whom you blogged about recently.
I think it would be different if he had been bereaved of his first marriage.
“Beloved husband and father” would have worked, would it not? Meanwhile I envy bloggers on WordPress and Blogger Beta as you are not locked out by maintenance…..
For some reason my mind has gone back to the burial of Francois Mitterand (if I have spelt that correctly).
I remember both is wife and mistress there, his children from his marriage and another child fathered to his mistress. It certainly is a different culture there.
It wouldnt have hurt to mention his former wife on there in my opinion. Still, i suppose whats done is done.
At the very least, one would expect to have his former wife mentioned on the stone out of respect to his sons.
> At the very least, one would expect to have his former wife mentioned on the stone out of respect to his sons.
On the face of it I agree whole-heartedly but (as someone else above suggested) we cannot know what family discussions have taken place and decisions made.
I agree with you Ellee it should have been on the tombstone- after all they had children as well. In Cook’s life I’m sure his first wife is someone who features largely, I couldn’t see how it couldn’t.
In the absence of any direction from the deceased himself (I’m talking about before he died, rather than any kind of ‘Colin Fry-esque’ interpretation from beyond the grave), then I guess this sort of thing must be decided by the next of kin. As has already been noted, it’s very difficult for any outsider to say what’s appropriate.
However, just “Beloved husband of Gaynor and Margaret” would make poor old Robin sound like a bit of a bigamist! ;-p
The absence of Margaret’s name had occured to me as well. Surely Gaynor should realise it’s meant to sum up his life?
Its definately an interesting question. I remember being at a funeral recently for a very elderly gentleman. His wife had predeceased him many years before and as he was such a cheeky old chap I remember thinking two things.
1. that it was odd that he had never remarried
and
2. that if he had done what the implications would be considering he was being put into a “shared burial plot” to lay with his first wife.
Would he still be buried and then if when his new wife died she could go on top in a sort of eternal menage a trois? (actually I think old Al may have quite liked that idea)
Personally I would want to climb straight back out of my grave again if my ex-husband’s name was even close to being added to my tombstone.
But I guess its just one of those very personal things.
Puddlejumper, Menage a trois burial plots had not occurred to me. I must admit. I was considering that Margaret and Robin had shared half their lives together, Gaynor was only a small part of it in comparison.