From Cornwall Record Office ref. D/R/19/12.
My dear Registrar,
I return the Petitions and accompanying papers in these three matters, the inscription and design in 2 and 3 being sent under separate cover.
As regards 3, I agree with the A.C’s criticism of the wording of the inscription. If the window was given by the deceased I do not see why the children should be mentioned, for they are really only carrying out a sort of executorial duty. On the other hand, there obvious reasons against proclaiming to all generations to come that the lady gave the window in memory of herself. I feel pretty confident that if you can with your persuasion and authority point this out to the children they will see that something less invidious and self-contradictory than their wording is desirable and they will, I hope, see the good sense of accepting the wording I have drafted and provisionally sanctioned.
I suggest:-
“In loving memory of Emilie Twist who died 28 October 1940 this window was placed here by her children D E and B P W in accordance with her wishes.”
On the assumption that they are prepared to accept this change of wording I have, to save time, endorsed the Petition with my fiat. Of course, if they insist on arguing for their wording in open court, we cannot prevent them, but as sensible people they will surely avoid the delay and expense of this when the only result must be that their wording will not be approved.
I notice Mr. Young’s query about publishing “the cost” on the Church door. Subject to what you may say I should agree with him that it is not necessary.
I hope all goes well with you
Yours
William Cleveland-Stevens
In full scale design ‘received’ is misspelt: also if you approve I should like the two dates to have the month in each case separating the day from the year, and I think the RD after 23 and TH after 13 could with advantage be omitted: I think these abbreviations above the line rather spoil the effect.
WCS
$Id: stmerryn0.xhtml,v 1.2 2010-05-08 14:26:44 mkc Exp $