Memorials

The petitioner wished to erect in the churchyard a memorial to her parents. She proposed two alternative designs. One design showed the head and arms of an angel with wings down each outer edge of the memorial. The alternative design replaced the angel with a small image of a dove, but also had wings running the height of the memorial. The Chancellor decided that the memorial designs were outside the range of what was appropriate to the location, by reason of the angel and its wings. He refused to grant a faculty for either design but, if the petitioner wished, a faculty would be granted for the memorial without the angel and the wings.

The grave of the petitioner's maternal grandparents was marked by a dark grey granite memorial in 1985. (The churchyard contains mostly memorials of the yellowish brown sandstone quarried locally.) Subsequently, the cremated remains of the petitioner’s aunt and her husband were buried in the plot and a dark granite cube memorial was installed. The petitioner's father and mother died in 2018 and 2019 respectively, and the petitioner now wished to place dark grey granite kerbs around the grave and add a desk-type memorial within the kerbs. Whilst the Chancellor considered it unfortunate that a dark grey granite memorial had been erected on the grave, a number of other dark grey granite memorials had been introduced into the churchyard, and she considered that a decision to require the use the local sandstone would not be appropriate: "either the memorial for the Petitioner’s parents would not match the existing memorial features at the plot, or the Petitioner would be obliged to replace the headstone and memorial cube to avoid this." She also considered it arguable, given the location of the cube memorial, that the addition of the kerb sets would both improve the appearance of the grave and ease its maintenance. She therefore granted a faculty.

The Petitioner sought permission retrospectively for a wooden surround and blue slate chippings installed without permission and contrary to the diocesan churchyards rules on a grave containing the remains of his grandparents. The Chancellor determined that there was no proper basis on which to permit a faculty. She therefore dismissed the petition and authorised the Parochial Church Council to remove the wooden surround and blue slate chippings.

The petitioner applied for permission to erect in the churchyard a memorial to her late husband, the memorial to be of polished black granite with gold lettering, both of which features are outside the churchyards regulations. Alongside the rectangular upright stone and connected to it was to be an upright column extending a little higher than the stone and bearing for almost its full height the image of a cross with a rose entwined around it. From a number of photographs, it was clear to the Chancellor that the churchyard contained many memorials which did not comply with the regulations, including a large number of black granite memorials with gold lettering. In the circumstances the Chancellor determined that it would be unfair to the petitioner to refuse to grant a faculty. Accordingly, he directed that a faculty be issued.

A proposed memorial inscription included the words "Husband, Dad and Pop". The incumbent did not feel happy about agreeing to the use of the word "Pop". An application was made for a faculty. The Diocesan Advisory Committee had no objection. The deceased's daughter claimed that "Pop" was a word in popular use in Cumbria, being a term commonly used to refer to a father or grandfather. The Chancellor decided on balance, and on the facts of the particular case, that it would be pastorally insensitive to refuse the faculty sought, and he accordingly granted a faculty.

This was an application for a confirmatory faculty in respect of a memorial, a vertical slab of black marble, with gilt lettering, mounted on a horizontal plinth, spanning two plots in an area for cremated remains, and the only vertical memorial in that area. The memorial also contained small engraved images of the two persons commemorated. The Chancellor refused to grant a confirmatory faculty for the upright memorial, but authorised its replacement within 12 months by a double-width horizontal memorial of similar design.

An application for a memorial was refused by the priest-in-charge, as it was outside the churchyards regulations as regards the proposal to include a photograph of the deceased. The applicant was advised to apply for a faculty. The stonemasons subsequently installed the memorial, including a photographic plaque, without the authority of a faculty. An application was made for a confirmatory faculty. The Chancellor granted a faculty allowing the photograph to remain for a period of 18 years, the life expectancy of the applicant plus 3 years, after which the photograph must be removed. The Chancellor stated that the stonemasons were at fault in not being aware of the restrictions against photographs in the churchyards regulations and installing a memorial without lawful authority. She directed that a special citation be issued to join the stonemasons as a party with a view to issuing an order for the costs of the faculty application to be paid by them.

The Chancellor authorised for each of two separate churchyards 'bespoke regulations' as to the types of memorial stone which may be permitted.

The cremated remains of the petitioners' mother, who died in 2016, were interred in the grave of her first husband, who died in 1978. The petitioners obtained approval from the acting priest during an interregnum to remove the headstone in memory of their late father, in order to have their mother's name added to the memorial. In the meantime, the mother's second husband of 32 years arranged for a tablet in memory of the petitioners' mother (including her surname after remarriage) to be laid on the grave. The petitioners wished the tablet to be removed. The Chancellor granted a faculty authorising the removal of the tablet subject to the condition that the headstone be amended by agreement between the petitioners and the second husband by adding words along the lines of: 'a widow for 5 years and for 32 years the beloved wife of N'. In the absence of agreement within 3 months, the Chancellor would invite the Archdeacon to petition for a faculty for the removal of both the headstone and the tablet and their replacement by a single memorial bearing wording directed by the Court.

The petitioners wished to erect a headstone on the grave of their uncle. The proposed memorial was to be dark grey granite, partly polished, with gold lettering, and bearing an engraved image of a motor cyclist with helmet and goggles on a racing motorcycle bearing the number 60, the number used by the deceased when he took part in motorcycle events, including the Isle of Man TT. As there were already several other polished stones in the churchyard, and the image was appropriate to commemorate the life of the deceased, the Chancellor granted a faculty.