Memorials

The petitioner wished to remove the existing memorial from her late brother's grave and replace it with a new memorial commemorating both her brother and her mother. The existing memorial fell outside the churchyards regulations, being a polished stone. The proposed new memorial fell outside the regulations, in view of the number of carved images proposed. The original memorial had two images. A third image, a rose, was proposed for the new memorial, next to the name of the petitioner's mother, whose name was Rosalie, though she was known as Rose. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioner wished to install a plaque on the north wall of the nave of this Grade II* listed medieval village church commemorating the contribution to the church and parish of his late wife. For many years before her death in May 2023 she had been a much-loved churchwarden. The PCC were sympathetic to the petitioner, and did not object to the petition, but they did not believe his application to be exceptional. The DAC considered the proposed memorial appropriate on the basis of its design, materials, wording, and location. They therefore recommended the proposal for approval; but they deliberately refrained from any comment as to whether the exceptionality test had been met, rightly considering this to be a matter for the Chancellor. Having considered the various factors to which the court should have regard when considering the issue of exceptionality, the Chancellor refused the faculty. Whilst recognising that the deceased’s contributions had been considerable, and significant, he found that they had not been sufficiently special, or outstanding, to go substantially above and beyond the faithful discipleship which the Church, aspires to, and hopes for, from all of its members.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for a single collective memorial on which could be recorded up to 120 names of those interred in the area for cremated remains of the churchyard. The Chancellor permitted a large stone of honed granite with three dark granite tablets. He would not normally have permitted such stone for a individual memorial in the churchyard of a sandstone church surrounded by mostly sandstone memorials. But he accepted that sandstone is much less durable than granite. Inscriptions would remain durable for longer on a granite tablet to which inscriptions would be added over a period of many years. Also, the memorial would not be close to other memorials in the churchyard and any adverse effect on the overall appearance of the churchyard would be minimal.

The petitioners wished to replace three family memorials, which were unstable and/or eroded. The Parochial Church Council objected to the replacement of the stones with stones of modern design in the old part of the churchyard. They preferred the original stones to be restored. The Chancellor determined that one of the stones, which was unstable, should be dismantled, cleaned, re-engraved, and re-fixed securely. The other two memorials, where the inscriptions were illegible, should each either be dismantled, cleaned, re-engraved, and re-fixed securely; or alternatively or else replaced with a new memorial to precisely the same design and dimensions as the existing, with same inscription, and of stone similar in colour to the existing.

A woman had died and had been buried in the grave of her husband. She left eight children. One of the daughters and her husband were appointed executors and sole beneficiaries of her will. This had caused a rift in the family, including a dispute as to the validity of the will. The executors applied for a memorial, which the priest in charge approved as within her delegated authority under the churchyards regulations. Not all the siblings had been consulted or had agreed on the proposed inscription. Four of the siblings petitioned that all the siblings should be required to agree a new form of words. The Deputy Chancellor took the view it was doubtful that the Court could make such an order. Instead, he had to consider whether the inscription was appropriate, or whether there were sufficiently good reasons for removal and replacement of the memorial. He decided that the inscription was not inappropriate, and there was therefore no good reason to order the removal of the stone, simply because there had not been consultation with and unanimous agreement between all the siblings.

The petitioners applied for permission to erect a memorial in the churchyard. Certain features of the design were outside what was authorised to be permitted by a parish priest under the churchyards regulations, namely, the memorial was larger that the maximum measurements allowed; there was an oversized plinth; kerbs were proposed; and it was proposed to have a design on the back of the memorial. The Chancellor approved the design, subject to conditions, including that there be no kerbs, and that there should be a smaller plinth.

An application was made for a book-shaped memorial which had features outside the churchyards regulations. The Parochial Church Council and the Diocesan Advisory Committee had objections to some of the features of the proposed memorial. The Chancellor determined that the memorial would cause only very limited harm to the churchyard and listed church building and he granted a faculty, subject to the constraints on dimensions set out in the judgment and subject to the stone not bearing a picture or photograph.

A memorial was proposed for the grave of a child who had died aged 6. The stone chosen was honed dark grey granite with a stone slab and stone chippings within kerbs. After consultation with the Archdeacon, the Deputy Chancellor decided to grant a faculty for the stone and kerbs, provided that there would be no slab and no chippings. There were already several graves with kerbstones in the churchyard, and the memorial proposed would be in the far corner of the churchyard, where it would only be seen by people visiting that area.

The Deputy Chancellor had three matters to consider in relation to an application for a memorial to mark the grave in which the petitioner's wife's ashes were buried: (a) reference on the memorial to the petitioner, still living; (b) a modified version of the poem “Do not stand at my grave and weep”, and (c) an objection by the Parochial Church Council ("PCC") to the type of stone. As to the first, the petitioner agreed to withdraw the proposal, and to leave space for a further inscription.  The Deputy Chancellor did not approve of the design of the proposed memorial, which included some blue stone, and considered that the wording of the version of the poem was 'over personal and inappropriate', but indicated that he would approve  'a more discrete monument with suitably revised wording'.

Petition for Faculty to authorise a memorial comprising a headstone and kerb stones. Headstone authorised, but not the kerb stones.