Previous Owners’ Final Wishes…

X School House Lane, Teddington TW11, UK

There’s not really anything too noteworthy about this run-down, 139-year-old house in Teddington, UK…

X School House Lane, Teddington TW11, UK

Well, nothing except maybe this bit from the listing agent’s description:

The rear garden measures approximately 50ft in depth and has significant width. It is important to note that the previous owners last wishes were to be buried in this garden, which is where both currently rest.

X School House Lane, Teddington TW11, UK

So there’s that.

Found by: Frances

About the Author

Marty E.

Naked Loon Editor-in-Chief

8 Comments on "Previous Owners’ Final Wishes…"

  1. Yes, but did these wishes specify for how long? If not, perhaps the buyer can declare duty done and make appropriate arrangements for the former owners to, shall we say, move on

    ReplyReply
  2. How can that even be legal? Sure, old burials are probably all over the place in an area so densely populated for so long. But to add modern ones into the mix? On purpose? And not in the pursuit of covering up a criminal act? In a lot of places in the U.S. it’s not even legal to bury your deceased pet in your backyard, let alone Mom and Dad. I sure as hell hope the local utilities have a “call before you dig” set up. (O_o)

    As for the house… the simply dreadful photos, believe it or not, do not do the place justice… punitive justice. This place isn’t just nasty, nasty, and did I mention nasty inside, take a look at the floor plan option just below the main picture at the listing. (Oddly enough, that main picture looks something like the Alamo.) Look at the rooms and their sizes. Not only is there NO kitchen named, the sitting room narrows to just 6’6″ at it’s front end. You’d think 1700sq ft would be workable for a small home, but not with this slice and dice approach. WTF?

    The whole place looks like it just needs to come down. Otherwise, it’s not only going to need serious work throughout the depths of the walls and 2nd floor ceiling/roof, it likely needs the same for both (actual) floors. While they’re at it, anything not load bearing needs to be jettisoned and an entirely new floor plan developed. Given the wonky angles and two floor layout, I’d go for two bedrooms, three tops.

    Of course any refurbishment is going to have to be done with whatever funds you have left over after shelling out over $1 million for this seeming pile of crap. Right next to train tracks. And with dead bodies in the back yard.

    Note: You might want to move on to the next listing if you have a digger type dog. (O_o) Maybe it’s for the best that the listing now reads “This property has been removed by the agent.” Either someone is very loose with their considerable money, or someone (agent or authorities) has finally grown a functioning brain cell and had the place condemned. Maybe Mom and Dad will be “evicted” after all.

    ReplyReply
  3. @anodean: I like the way you think. You aren’t by any chance a… lawyer?

    ReplyReply
  4. When I look at the photos, I can’t help but think that, if I lived here, *my* last wishes would be “Get me the hell out of here!!” Not “bury me in the garden under the forsythia, right next to old Duke.”

    ReplyReply
  5. @JMixx: I would concur. I have hazy recollection that these were the speculative tract houses of the 1800s, built to sell quickly into an expanding, unsophisticated market: they weren’t anyone’s best work when they were new, which was likely before indoor plumbing.

    In those same times, the “gardens” behind these attached houses might have been a virtual midden of animal sheds and privies, so one may consider that there have likely been lots worse things in that yard than someone’s ashes (on reflection, I doubt interment of intact remains would have been permitted).

    The whole cluster of houses probably needs to come down – and if someone was (or was suspected to be) buying them up for redevelopment, the heirs to a place like this might float something rather like this listing… and then suspend it when talks began.

    ReplyReply
  6. @anodean: “I have hazy recollection that these were the speculative tract houses of the 1800s…”

    Um… not to be indelicate but… just how old are you?

    ReplyReply
  7. @Emerald63: Well, forsaking the awful temptation to create an eccentric persona of unnaturally enduring age, mostly I’m just lumbered with a ridiculous amount of useless information. :D

    ReplyReply
  8. @anodean: Yes, I resemble that remark. :D

    ReplyReply

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*